C H Spurgeon2 preached on this subject, taking as his text the words of Hebrews 12:5: “And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of Him”.
He began the sermon with the following remarks: “God’s people can never by any possibility be punished for their sins. God has punished them already in the person of Christ; Christ, their substitute, has endured the full penalty for all their guilt, and neither the justice nor the love of God can ever exact again that which Christ has paid. Punishment can never happen to a child of God in the judicial sense; he can never be brought before God as his judge, as charged with guilt, because that guilt was long ago transferred to the shoulders of Christ, and the punishment was exacted at the hands of his surety. But yet, while the sin cannot be punished, while the Christian cannot be condemned, he can be chastised; while he shall never be arraigned before God’s bar as a criminal, and punished for his guilt, yet he now stands in a new relationship – that of a child to his parent; and as a son he may be
23A letter from William III authorizing this exchange is given in Thomas M’Crie, Memoirs of William Veitch and George Brysson, Edinburgh, 1825, pp 523-4.
24Wodrow, vol 4, pp 334-6.
1Compiled by Peter Best from the writings of eminent Christians.
2Spurgeon (1834-1892) was Baptist pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle, London.
chastised on account of sin. Folly is bound up in the heart of all God’s children, and the rod of the Father must bring that folly out of them. It is essential to observe the distinction between punishment and chastisement.”
Later in the sermon he commented on the question in Hebrews 12:7, “For what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?” as follows: “Ye ministers of God who preach the gospel, is there amongst your ranks one son whom his Father chasteneth not? Unanimously they reply, ‘We all have been chastened’. Ye holy prophets who testified God’s word with the Holy Ghost from heaven, is there one amongst your number whom God chastened not? Abraham, Daniel, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Malachi answer; and they unanimously cry, ‘There is not one among us whom the Father chasteneth not’.
“Ye kings, ye chosen ones, ye Davids and ye Solomons, is there one in your high and lofty ranks who has escaped chastisement? Answer, David, wast not thou obliged to cross the brook Kedron in the darkness? Answer, Jehoshophat, hadst not thou thy cross when thy ships were broken that were sent to Tarshish for gold? O ye starry host above, translated out of the reach of the trials of this world, is there one amongst you whom the father chastened not? Not one; there is not one in heaven whose back was unscarred by the chastening rod, if he attained to the age when he needed it. The infant alone escapes, flying at once from his mother’s breast to heaven. There is one whom I will ask, the Son of God, the Son par excellence, the chief of all the family. Thou Son of God incarnate, didst Thou escape the rod? Son without sin, wast Thou a Son without punishment? Wast Thou chastised? Hark! The hosts of heaven and earth reply, the Church militant and triumphant answers: The chastisement of our peace was even upon Him: He suffered; He bore the cross; He endured the curse as well as any of us; yea, more, He endured ten-thousand-fold more chastisement than any of us can by any possibility endure.”
In his commentary on the Book of Proverbs Charles Bridges3 makes these remarks on the words of chapter 3:11,12: “My son, despise not the chastening of the Lord; neither be weary of His correction; for whom the Lord loveth He correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth”:
“Nowhere, indeed, are our corruptions so manifest, or our graces so shining, as under the rod. We need it as much as our daily bread. Children of God are still children of Adam, with Adam’s will, pride, independence and waywardness. . . . For indeed chastisement is the declared test of our legitimacy (Heb 12:7,8, Rev 3:19). He corrects whom He loves, the son in whom He delighteth. His discipline is that of the family, not of the school, much less of the prison. He corrects His children, not as criminals, but as those He beholds
3Bridges (1794-1869) was an Evangelical preacher in the Church of England.
without spot, made ‘accepted in the Beloved’ (Eph 1:6). . . . He knows what is our need, and how to apply the discipline. He chooses the fittest time (Is 30:18, 1 Pet 5:6), the surest yet gentlest means, the most considerate measure (Is 27:7,8, Jer 30:11, Lam 3:31-33), the most effective instruments. And, comparing our affliction with our sin, is not the marvel that it is so light? (Ezra 9:13, Ps 103:10, Lam 3:39.) Have we not more than deserved it all? . . .
“Every rod is thy Father’s messenger; and He will not bear to have His messenger despised. Be anxious to ‘hear the rod, and who hath appointed it’ (Mic 6:9); well knowing that ‘the Lord hath not done without cause all that He hath done’ (Ezek 14:23). . . . No communion is so close, so endearing, so fruitful, as with a chastening God. Never is Christ more precious to us, His love more sweet, than in the midst – yea, in the very form – of chastening. Never have we so full a manifestation of the divine character (Ps 119:75) and perfections. What we have before learnt in theory we here learn experimentally; and what we have before imperfectly understood is here more fully revealed.”
On Hebrews 12:9-11, “Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own profit; but He for our profit, that we might be partakers of His holiness. Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby”, John Brown4 made these comments:
“There is a very striking contrast between our human and divine fathers. ‘We have had fathers of our flesh’ – that is, we have had natural parents. They chastened us – they had a right to do so from their relation, and they did so. They restrained us – they ‘corrected us’; and we did not rebel against them; ‘we gave them reverence’. Now, if it was reasonable and right in us to submit to their chastisement, must it not be much more obviously reasonable and right to submit to the chastisement of the Father of our spirits? . . .
“To be in subjection to our spiritual Father is a phrase of extensive import. It denotes, as John Owen5 says, ‘an acquiescence in His sovereign right to do what He will with us as His own; a renunciation of self-will; an acknowledgement of His righteousness and wisdom in all His dealings with us; a sense of His care and love, with a due apprehension of the end of His chastisements; a diligent application of ourselves unto His mind and will, or to what
4Brown (1784-1858) was a Presbyterian minister in Edinburgh.
5Owen (1616-1683) was a Puritan theologian, who became Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford.
He calls us to in an especial manner at that season; a keeping of our souls by persevering faith from weariness and despondency; a full resignation of ourselves to His will, as to the matter, manner, times and continuance of our afflictions’ . . . .
“A further argument for submission to the chastisements of our spiritual Father is derived from His object in these chastisements, as contrasted with the object which our natural fathers had in their chastisements. ‘For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but He for our profit that we might be made partakers of His holiness.’ . . . There are many parents who, in inflicting chastisement, are guided just by the impulse of the moment, and have no direct reference to the ultimate welfare of the child . . . but our heavenly Father never chastises His children except for their ‘profit’. His object is uniformly their real advantage; and the form, the degree, the duration of the affliction, is all ordered by infinite wisdom so as best to gain this objective. . . .
“The concluding words are commonly considered as stating in what the profit of God’s children, which is His object in their afflictions, consists. It consists in their becoming ‘partakers of His holiness’ . . . till we have no mind different from the mind of God, no will different from the will of God – till, according to our measure, we be holy as He is holy, and perfect as He is perfect. And then, the end of chastisement being gained, it will cease for ever; and as the mature, the fully-grown, the thoroughly-educated children of God, we shall live for ever in our Father’s house above, in the eternal enjoyment of that happiness which He has secured for us by the obedience to the death of His own Son, and for which He has prepared us by the influence of His Spirit and the discipline of His providence. . . .
“The consequences of these afflictions, when dutifully sustained, are so advantageous, that they more than compensate the pain which they occasion during their continuance. This is plainly stated in the eleventh verse: ‘Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby’ . . . . The apostle admits that it is of the very nature of affliction to produce pain and sorrow. . . . They produce painful not pleasurable emotions; they are intended to do so; they cannot serve the purpose for which they are sent without doing so. . . . But while the apostle admits that the afflictions of Christians are, during their continuance, ‘not joyous but grievous’, he at the same time teaches that ‘afterwards they yield the peaceable fruit of righteousness to them who are exercised thereby’ . . . .
“Chastisement produces fruit, and that fruit is righteousness. Righteousness is here, I apprehend, to be understood as just equivalent to a frame of mind
and a course of conduct corresponding to what is right; it is the same thing as becoming ‘partakers of God’s holiness’. . . .
“Affliction rightly considered, is calculated to impress on the mind the evil of sin generally, our own sinfulness, the vanity of the world, the importance of an interest in the divine favour, the value of a good conscience, the blessedness of a well-grounded hope of eternal life. In the time of ease and prosperity, the mind is naturally thoughtless and inconsiderate; the realities of the spiritual and eternal state are in some measure forgotten; the enjoyments of life supply, as it were, the place of the happiness which arises from a good conscience and peace with God. But sanctified affliction makes us see things as they really are, leads to serious self-inquiry, prevents us from saying, ‘Peace, peace, when there is no peace’, fixes the mind on the things which concern our everlasting interests, and excites an anxiety to remove everything which interferes with or endangers them.”