Spurgeon: "Then They Did Spit In His Face"
Tuesday, March 9, 2010 at 4:00AM I read a sermon yesterday by Spurgeon based on Matthew 26:67: "Then they spit in his face..." Spurgeon applied this passage, in part, to our theology of the cross. Specifically:
There are many, in those days, who seem as if they cannot be happy unless they are tearing the gospel to pieces. Especially is that divine mystery of the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ the mark for the arrows of the wise men, I mean those who are wise according to the wisdom of this world. We delight to know that our Lord Jesus Christ suffered in the room and place and stead of his people...
Yet I have read some horrible things which have been written against that blessed doctrine, and as I read them I could only say to myself, "Then did they spit in his face." If there is anything that is beyond all else the glory of Christ, it is his atoning sacrifice; and if ever you thrust your finger into the very apple of his eye, and touch his honor in the tenderest possible point, it is when you have aught to say against his offering of himself a sacrifice unto God, without blemish and without spot, that he might put away the iniquities of his people. Wherefore judge yourselves in this matter, and if ye have...ever assailed his atoning sacrifice, it might truly have been said of you, "Then did they spit in his face."
Wow.
Just a few reflections:
Some of the theological debates we're seeing have been going on a long time. There's nothing new going on here.
There really are different and complimentary perspectives on the atonement, but all have substitution at the core. I don't think Spurgeon is saying you have to affirm penal substitution and deny all other models or perspectives on the atonement. As Tim Keller writes:
My prof at Gordon-Conwell, Roger Nicole, used to say that there were many perspectives on the atonement, but the one theme that ran through them all was substitution. Christus Victor, for example, means Jesus fought for us, in our place, we didn't do it, he did it. And so 'penal' substitution is the perspective of the law court, and 'ransom' substitution is the perspective of the marketplace, and 'Christus Victor' substitution is the perspective of the battlefield, and 'sacrificial' substitution is the perspective of the temple/tabernacle. They all get at it differently, but the one commonality is substitution. God came and substituted himself for us--so we could be saved from sin. Nicole wrote this up in a little afterword to his festschrift The Glory of the Atonement.
I think Spurgeon is right in seeing this as a crucial part of the gospel. I realize that his language is strong - but if the atonement is as central to the gospel as he argues, I think his conclusions follow.
Interesting in light of some of the discussions going on these days. Thoughts?
Reader Comments (3)
"I realize that his language is strong – but if the atonement is as central to the gospel as he argues, I think his conclusions follow." There is nothing more central to the teachings of the Scriptures than the substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross. Perhaps our words about the teachings of those who attack it are not strong enough. To not believe that Jesus took our punishment on the cross is to invite God to let us take it for ourselves. And He will accommodate such a request. "Depart from me" is strong language as well.
According to Jesus in the parable of the Tenants his crucifixion for those who crucified him was not going to be a positive outcome but quite the opposite! I think that if his death was in place of yours it would also have been in place of theirs. Perhaps God changed his mind about respecting your persons, but I don't think so.
John 3 16 - 17 says, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him."My understanding of the nature of God the Father and the substitutionary sacrifice of His Son, is that said sacrifice was indeed also for those very people who crucified Him as well. Had they accepted Him and believed in Him, the outcome would have been as intended. That those who crucified Jesus continued to reject Him was their choice, not God's intention.I wonder what the outcome was for those mentioned in Matthew 27:54 "When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, “Surely He was the Son of God!”?