Charles Spurgeon and the suffering in Gethsemane

[Bobbieaware]

In a recent thread, "The Cross or the Garden," there was some debate between some non-LDS Christians and some Latter-day Saints as to where it was that Christ atoned for the sins of the world. Was the Lord's sacrificial offering accomplished in the Garden of Gethsemane alone? Or was his atonement for sin experienced as he hung on Calvary's cruel cross? Or did Our Lord atone both in Gethsemane and on Calvary?

 

Well I recently discovered a sermon written by the famed 19th century British Baptist minister Charles H Spurgeon, and in his powerful sermon Spurgeon makes it clear he believed Christ suffered for our sins in the garden, as well on the cross. Prior to finding this sermon of  Spurgeon's, I was already well aware of the fact that the Latter-day Saints are not the only Christians who believe Christ's atoning sufferings began in earnest when he suffered nigh unto death and sweat great drops of  blood in the garden of Gethsemane. But Spurgeon's profound insights into Christ's atoning suffering in Gethsemane is a welcome addition to the powerful insights offered by other non-LDS biographers of Christ, such as Frederic Farrar. So my point in this post is that we faithful Latter-day Saints are not alone among Christians in believing that Christ's atoning sufferings began in earnest in Gethsemane. We need not think we are alone in our belief. An excerpt...

"Again looking at Jesus in the garden, we learn the excellence and completeness of the atonement. How black I am, how filthy, how loathsome in the sight of God, — I feel myself only fit to be cast into the lowest hell, and I wonder that God has not long ago cast me there; but I go into Gethsemane, and I peer under those gnarled olive trees, and I see my Saviour. Yes, I see Him wallowing on the ground in anguish, and hear such groans come from Him as never came from human breast before. I look upon the earth and see it red with His blood, while His face is smeared with gory sweat, and I say to myself, “My God, my Saviour, what aileth Thee?” I hear Him reply, “I am suffering for thy sin,” and then I take comfort, for while I fain would have spared my Lord such an anguish, now that the anguish is over I can understand how Jehovah can spare me, because He smote His Son in my stead. Now I have hope of justification, for I bring before the justice of God and my own conscience the remembrance of my bleeding Saviour, and I say, Canst Thou twice demand payment, first at the hand of Thy agonizing Son and then again at mine? Sinner as I am, I stand before the burning throne of the severity of God, and am not afraid of it. Canst thou scorch me, O consuming fire, when Thou hast not only scorche but utterly consumed my substitute? Nay, by faith, my soul sees justice satisfied, the law honoured, the moral government of God established and yet my once guilty soul absolved and set free. The fire of avenging justice has spent itself, and the law has exhausted its most rigorous demands upon the person of Him who was made a curse for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. Oh the sweetness of the comfort which flows from the atoning blood! Obtain that comfort, my brethren, and never leave it. Cling to you Lord’s bleeding heart, and drink in abundant consolation."

Copy and paste the following link to read the full sermon:

www.the-highway.com/gethsemane_Spurgeon.html 

 

Edited April 5, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[Damien the Leper]

The Last Week of Jesus's life, from the triumphant entry to the empty tomb contribute to the Atonement. Splitting hairs over which part of the drama the Atonement actually takes place devalues the full experience. Where it happened isn't important. The fact that it did happen is everything.

[Bobbieaware]

5 hours ago, Valentinus said:

The Last Week of Jesus's life, from the triumphant entry to the empty tomb contribute to the Atonement. Splitting hairs over which part of the drama the Atonement actually takes place devalues the full experience. Where it happened isn't important. The fact that it did happen is everything.

I believe Christ atoned by suffering and bleeding for our sins in Gethsemane, while being scourged, while carrying his cross on the Via Dolorosa, while being abused by the Roman soldiers, and while being crucified on Calvary's cross. Recounting the scriptural record to establish where and how Christ atoned for our sins does not in the slightest devalue that sacrifice. My reason for starting this thread was simply to point out that though many non-LDS Christians believe Chris's atonement took place only on the cross, that there are several prominent non-LDS scholars who agree with the Latter-day Saints that Christ's atoning suffering began in Gethsemane. It's good to know not all non-LDS Christians disagree with the Mormons that what took place in Gethsemane was an important part of the atoning sacrifice.. Many non-LDS Christians emphasize Calvary as the place where the atonement took place, and not a few members of the LDS Church have said that the atoning suffering took place primarily in Gethsemane. But I disagree with both these camps, choosing instead tp emphasize a more comprehensive approach to the where's and hows of the atonement. 

 

 

[Damien the Leper]

It's unnecessary speculation. Suggesting one specific place for the actual atoning does take away from all the other important parts. Actually, everything means NOTHING without Resurrection. If one wishes to dispute this then one need only look at the narrative of Jesus at the temple in John. Resurrection says that the Atonement is complete and binding. 

[3DOP]

It has been said that the drops of blood spilled at His circumcision were sufficient to atone for our sins. Of course, that begs the question about why He willingly suffered so much more cruelly. 

[Damien the Leper]

1 minute ago, 3DOP said:

It has been said that the drops of blood spilled at His circumcision were sufficient to atone for our sins. Of course, that begs the question about why He willingly suffered so much more cruelly. 

Hi, Rory! Do you have a source or link where I can read up on this?

[3DOP]

Just now, Valentinus said:

Hi, Rory! Do you have a source or link where I can read up on this?

Lunch break just now. I'll try to find my source tonight if I can. Later.

[3DOP]

Valentinus,

The speculation which I have mentioned regarding the circumcision as adequate satisfaction for sins is based on the Catholic doctrine of the superabundancy of Christ's merits. Because He is God, all of HIs actions have infinite value:

Quote

"For not with corruptible things as gold or silver, but with the precious blood of His very (Son) as of a lamb unspotted and unstained He has redeemed us" [cf. I Pet. 1:18-19], who innocent, immolated on the altar of the Cross is known to have poured out not a little drop of blood, which however on account of union with the Word would have been sufficient for the redemption of the whole human race...

---Unigenitus Dei Filius, Bull of Jubilee by Pope Clement VI, Jan. 25, 1343 (bold mine), Denz. 550.

You can access Denzinger's The Sources of Catholic Dogma online: http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma.php

Quote

The Child is circumcised: he is now not only a member of the human race; he is made to-day a member of God’s chosen People. He subjects himself to this painful ceremony, to this symbol of one devoted to the Divine service, in order that he may fulfil all justice. He receives, at the same time, his Name: the Name is Jesus, and it means a Saviour. A Saviour! Then he is to save us? Yes; and he is to save us by his Blood. Such is the divine appointment, and he has bowed down his will to it. The Incarnate Word is upon the earth in order to offer a Sacrifice, and the Sacrifice is begun to-day. This first shedding of the Blood of the Man-God was sufficient to the fulness and perfection of a Sacrifice; but he is come to win the heart of the sinner, and that heart is so hard that all the streams of that Precious Blood, which flow from the Cross on Calvary, will scarcely make it yield. The drops that were shed to-day would have been enough to satisfy the justice of the Eternal Father, but not to cure man’s miseries, and the Babe’s Heart would not be satisfied to leave us uncured. He came for man’s sake, and his love for man will go to what looks like excess - he will carry out the whole meaning of his dear name - he will be our ‘ Jesus,’ our Saviour.

---The Liturgical Year of Dom Prosper Gueranger, Vol. 2, 384, 385. (bold mine), edition republished by St. Bonaventure Publications, July 2000

This was the commentary which was offered for the short Gospel reading on the Feast of the Circumcision, Jan 1, according to the calendar used by those who assist at the Traditional Latin Mass: 

Quote

At that time: After eight days were accomplished that the Child should be circumcised, his name was called Jesus, which was called by the Angel before he was conceived in the womb.

Not all, but much of the 16 volumes of the Liturgical Year appears to be available on line. http://www.liturgialatina.org/lityear/

Edited April 5, 2016 by 3DOP

[carbon dioxide]

13 hours ago, 3DOP said:

It has been said that the drops of blood spilled at His circumcision were sufficient to atone for our sins. Of course, that begs the question about why He willingly suffered so much more cruelly. 

We bleed all the time.  Every time I floss I bleed a little.  I am sure a bleed a little when I eat.  I bite myself on occasions.  I am sure if Christ a child probably cut himself just like all kids do.

[3DOP]

On 4/6/2016 at 9:16 PM, carbon dioxide said:

We bleed all the time.  Every time I floss I bleed a little.  I am sure a bleed a little when I eat.  I bite myself on occasions.  I am sure if Christ a child probably cut himself just like all kids do.

Hi CO2.

I don't think the Catholic Church is unaware of the fact that we "bleed all the time". The question is about how much suffering was necessary for Christ to make satisfaction for our sins. I don't think the argument is that the circumcision blood was any different from when we "bleed all the time". The circumcision was an event recorded in the Gospel and there is a feast in its commemoration in the Catholic Church. The commentator who spoke about the Gospel for that day wasn't saying anything negative about Christ's other drops of blood to which you allude. But as the first recorded example of when we know the Lord Jesus Christ permitted that His blood would be shed, a suggestion was made that this would have been adequate if Christ's sole purpose was to merely make satisfaction for sins. This is because of the superabundant merits of Christ (see quotation above from Pope Clement VI).

I am not a theologian and I admit I haven't pondered this as much as perhaps I should have before. But I now find it very significant to consider the possibility that it wasn't justice that made Christ willingly suffer so much cruelty. Look again at what the commentator is saying:

"This first shedding of the Blood of the Man-God was sufficient to the fulness and perfection of a Sacrifice; but he is come to win the heart of the sinner, and that heart is so hard that all the streams of that Precious Blood, which flow from the Cross on Calvary, will scarcely make it yield. The drops that were shed to-day [the feast day, Jan 1, eight days after Christmas] would have been enough to satisfy the justice of the Eternal Father, but not to cure man’s miseries, and the Babe’s Heart would not be satisfied to leave us uncured. He came for man’s sake, and his love for man will go to what looks like excess - he will carry out the whole meaning of his dear name - he will be our ‘ Jesus,’ our Saviour."

Understood in context, this means that rather than rigorous justice, it is mercy and love for us which makes Him go to Gethsemane and take up the Cross. In answer to the thread topic, I was offering agreement with bobbieaware regarding Gethsemane, and pointing out that Catholics can go a step further. We can believe that mere justice was already satisfied before the Son's death. Christ's Passion is either an inexhaustible mystery, or every stripe was adding up to the full measure of God's justice. As a Catholic, I also like the mystery option. Thinking about this, I can maybe understand a little better why Catholics display the Crucifix and other Christians are uncomfortable with it. As an instrument of justice, the Cross must appear to many as little better than a necessary evil. I wouldn't want a necessary evil around my neck or in my church either! But as an instrument of mercy, we can perceive that the Cross of Christ "looks like excess". That is the appearance. The beautiful mystery of it becomes more apparent when the saints decide that they too, wish to be crucified with Christ. 

Rory

 

 

[Bobbieaware]

On April 6, 2016 at 0:16 AM, carbon dioxide said:

We bleed all the time.  Every time I floss I bleed a little.  I am sure a bleed a little when I eat.  I bite myself on occasions.  I am sure if Christ a child probably cut himself just like all kids do.

The point is that Christ's blood could not atone for our sins until he became perfect (infinite and eternal) and until he had learned how to be perfevtly obedient through enduring the things which he suffered.

The. reason why the Latter-day Saints know Christ suffered for our sins in Gethsemane, as well as on the cross, is because in the LDS scriptures both Christ himself and a holy angel testify that it is so.

[3DOP]

6 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

The point is that Christ's blood could not atone for our sins until he became perfect (infinite and eternal) and until he had learned how to be perfevtly obedient through enduring the things which he suffered.

The. reason why the Latter-day Saints know Christ suffered for our sins in Gethsemane, as well as on the cross, is because in the LDS scriptures both Christ himself and a holy angel testify that it is so.

Hi bobbie.

That makes sense to me from your point of view. We would also agree that atonement required that Christ be perfect (infinite and eternal). Our differences would be as to how we say this comes about. But anyway, since you are here now...Do you think that the whole process of the Passion was completely necessary for justice to be satisfied? Would any diminishing of the pain Christ endured have left justice unsatisfied? Or were the sufferings of the Passion superabundant, as regards justice?

Regards,

Rory

[Bobbieaware]

3 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Hi bobbie.

That makes sense to me from your point of view. We would also agree that atonement required that Christ be perfect (infinite and eternal). Our differences would be as to how we say this comes about. But anyway, since you are here now...Do you think that the whole process of the Passion was completely necessary for justice to be satisfied? Would any diminishing of the pain Christ endured have left justice unsatisfied? Or were the sufferings of the Passion superabundant, as regards justice?

Regards,

Rory

Hello again Rory:

if you go to my original post on this thread, and cut and paste the link I provided, you'll see Spurgeon says something I have privately believed for a long time (I was astonished to find Spurgeon came up with the same idea long before I did). His belief -- and mine -- is that one of the reasons why Christ had to suffer nigh unto death and shed his atoning blood in the GARDEN of Gethsemane is because his mission there was, at least in part, to make rectification for Adam's original act of disobedience to God in the GARDEN of Eden. Christ struggled mightily in the solitude of the garden of Gehsemane until he was finally able to come into a state of full obedience to the Father's will. Then, later, he wore a crown of thorns on Calvay's hill to symbolize the fact that he not only came to atone for Adam's transgression, but he also came to atone for the sins of all the sons and daughters of men that would be committed, after the expulsion from the garden, in what we Latter-day Saints call "the lone and dreary world of thorns and thistles." 

As for whether or not Christ's suffering was superabundant, the answer to that question is it was not. It would be unjust for God (God is perfectly just) to put his Som through any more suffering than was necessary to balance the scales of justice and mercy and fully atone for all sin. Another interesting point to ponder in this regard is that in Mormonism the atoning sacrifice was a learning process the Lord needed to go through so that he could experientially, not just theoretically, come to intimately know all things. The lessons he needed to learn about the realm of sin and woe (so that he would fully comprehend how to save and heal us) weren't completed until that triumphant moment when he cried, "it is finished."

Finally, we Latter-day Saints believe that, just like us, the Savior grew in grace and knowledge -- going from grace to grace by receiving grace for grace -- and that he wasn't fully ready to shed atoning blood until he fully surrendered his will to His zFather's will in the garden. And it was after that surrender that he then sweat his previous blood in the garden.

8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; (Hebrews 5)