QUESTION

The reason for chastening in I Corinthians 11:27-34?

RESPONSE

However in order for me to respond and do this properly, I first want to say a few things about the basic issue of chastening in general, which I think are important to understand and that I am persuaded have a direct bearing upon the chastening situation in Corinth.

First of all in my understanding the issue of chastisement is easy to understand, appreciate, and recognize, when we are in God’s program and dealings with Israel; especially in the “time past” portion of Israel’s program. As passages like Leviticus 26 set forth, God’s chastisement of them was a natural part of the contracted curses and punishments of the Law contract. Since Israel opted to be dealt with by God on the basis of their works, and hence receive from His Justice what their works merited, their failure to produce the righteousness of the Law merited the specific physical and circumstantial punishments of chastisement that are set forth and delineated in the Law. Therefore physical and circumstantial chastisement in God’s program with Israel was a natural thing in view of the Law contract, and in view of the fact that by means of the Law contract God dealt with Israel as “children” whom He had placed under “tutors and governors.”

However we, of course, in this present dispensation of God’s grace are not being dealt with by God on the basis of the Law. Nor, therefore, is God dealing with us as “children,” but rather as adult “sons.” Yet, though this is the case, we do find the apostle Paul talking about being chastened; for example in I Corinthians 11:32. We even find him talking about being punished in II Corinthians 2. This may seem puzzling at first, but in my understanding the answer lies in understanding that there is more than one type of chastening.

What I specifically mean by that is this: chastening is not restricted to being something that only a “child” receives. There is chastening for “sons.” All too often the reality of this is not recognized or understood as it should be. Nevertheless the doctrine of sonship makes it plain that there is chastening for “sons.” However it is of a type that is commensurate with the adult/mature nature of the sonship status, and therefore for the most part it differs from the typically physical forms associated with the chastening of “children.” But nonetheless it still is chastening, and in connection with it even terms like “punishment,” “condemnation,” and even “damnation,” are used in reference to adult “sons.” (Again, we find Paul using them with us.)

Now in God’s program with Israel this issue of a distinction between the chastening of a “child” and that of an adult “son” is set forth. (Since Israel is the one “to whom *pertaineth* the adoption,” the fundamental doctrine of sonship with its features, components, mechanics, and the like is found in God’s program with them.) A quick example of this is in Hebrews 12. There the members of the remnant of Israel, who were being dealt with by God as “sons,” were being told about how they were being chastened of the Lord. And they were being chastened. However they were not being chastened as per the chastisements and punishments of the Law associated with being dealt with as a “child.” Instead they were being chastened as per the sonship chastisement spoken about in Proverbs. Hence the quote about their chastening in Hebrews 12 is from the book of Proverbs, and it is not a quote from Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 28, etc.

And once again these members of the remnant of Israel were indeed being dealt with as “sons,” just as the passage declares. Yet, though they were “sons,” they were being chastened. My understanding is that the primary and/or predominant form of ‘sonship chastening,’ if I can coin that term, is that of the “rebuke” of the Lord that is spoken about in the Proverbs passage, along with any and all corrective doctrine and any and all appropriate exhortation that would accompany the rebuke or reproof. And this, for example, is just what the remnant of Israel “sons” were receiving in the epistle of Hebrews to them. God sternly rebuked and reproved them on a number of occasions throughout the epistle, and He did so in connection with a number of issues. In so doing He manifested to them the inconsistencies and incompatibility of what they were thinking and doing. And along with this He gave them corrective doctrine and exhorted them to bring themselves into line with it. This once again, is the primary and/or predominant form of ‘sonship chastening.’ And as such it respects and works in accordance with the adulthood status that the “son” has. It is commensurate with the issues of intelligent responsibility, knowledgeable accountability, and maturity, which are issues belonging to the adulthood of “sonship.”

Such chastening therefore has God, as “the Father of spirits,” particularly dealing in and working with the responsible and accountable inner man of His “son”; the spirit of the “son”; rather than the outward man, or the circumstances of life, as when dealing with a “child.”

Now I have been careful to say that this is the primary and/or predominant form of ‘sonship chastening.’ I say it this way because it is evident to me that there is another form. Or maybe it is better to say that there is another aspect of ‘sonship chastening.’ This other aspect is the issue of a father, who by means of producing a strong example of the consequences of being ‘a foolish son,’ gives his son a powerful warning and ensample concerning getting himself involved in some criminal, or dangerous, or corruptive, or detrimental worldly activity. Especially an activity that can ruin his good name and reputation, destroy his influence, or that results in him bringing reproach and damage both upon himself and his father, as well as upon his father’s business, in which he as a “son” is now privileged to be collaborating with his father.

My understanding is that this other aspect of ‘sonship chastening’ is what is involved in the issue of “and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.” When it doesn’t refer to being physically scourged with a whip or scourge, “scourget” can denote the issue of being subjected to some form of strong or severe correction, especially of a public nature, that serves as an ensample and strong admonition concerning the folly of being involved in some particular wrongdoing.

(This comes from the fact that often times law-breakers and criminals were publicly scourged for the purpose of serving as a warning to the public not to be so foolish and do the same thing.)

[Much more could be said about sonship in general as well as ‘sonship chastening,’ but ]

Now all of this, as I said at the outset, has a direct bearing upon my understanding of the chastening situation in I Corinthians 11. And briefly put, my understanding is as follows:

— that the Corinthian saints were being “chastened of the Lord” in accordance with ‘sonship chastening.’
— that verses 27-29 in particular make it evident that the mockery they were making of the Lord’s table was of a criminal nature in God’s sight, and that this brought their activity within the province of making an ensample out of them in this.
— that verses 30-32 in particular, but also verses 33-34 [and following], teach us that God has made a ‘sonship ensample’ out of “many” of them in connection with this, and that /we/ therefore are to respond to what God did as a powerful ensample and admonition to us regarding the folly of not heeding the Lord’s ‘sonship chastening’ of us and His reason for it.

This is the gist of my understanding of the chastening situation in I Corinthians 11.

Keith Blades
Enjoy The Bible Ministries

20020527 A11 S G I IP tp bn chasten