Is Gethsemane part of the atonement of Christ? Many LDS say yes, while Protestants generally say no. What do Deidre Green & Eric Huntsman say? Check out our conversation…
Don’t miss our other conversations about atonement: https://gospeltangents.com/lds_theology/atonement/
Copyright © 2024
Gospel Tangents
All Rights Reserved
Except for book reviews, no content may be reproduced without written permission
Is Gethsemane Part of Atonement?
GT 00:47 I want to throw more one more question at you guys, and then we’ll dive a little bit more into the book. So, I also spoke with a Lutheran pastor, Willie Grills, and he said, “I have a question for you, Rick.” And I was like, I ask the questions. I don’t answer questions. But anyway. (Chuckling) So Willie had read Bruce R. McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine. And he said, “Is it true that Mormons believe,” and so I’ll throw this at both of you here. You can go back and see what my answer was and see if I got it right or wrong. But anyway, “Is it true that Mormons believe that Christ suffered all of the sins in the garden, rather than on the cross?” How would you respond to that? I won’t tell you what I said.
Eric 01:38 I think that there has been a pendulum that has swung. I think a lot of it had to do with in the mid-20th century, Joseph Fielding Smith, really taught a lot about Gethsemane, to compensate for an over stress or focus on the cross. Then, his son-in-law, Bruce R. McConkie ran with that. So, a lot of us who grew up in the 60s and 70s, that’s what we grew up with. But if you look at the early teachings in the Church, and earlier leaders, it was, he suffered and died and rose the third day. I mean, that emphasis, I think, was more traditional on the cross. Then with Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie it swung to more Gethsemane, and I think in the 90s, and in this century, we have something which I think is more useful, we’re in the middle. The way I teach this in a New Testament context is the garden is where he took upon himself the burden of not just our sins, but our sorrows, our heartaches, our afflictions, our sicknesses. That did cause suffering, because it was like the crushing of the olives, etc. But he carried that burden to the cross, where they had an end. So, I think what happens is, not only did we, within the church, I think, perhaps focus too much on Gethsemane, it also gave a lot of ammunition to people outside the church to say, “You Mormons have got it wrong. You think he just suffered for our sins in the garden,” when that’s never been what our scriptures–I mean, John Hilton has done a lot of work on this. He’s actually done, with some of his research assistants, studies of Latter-day Saint conference discourses, etc. And up until about the 1950s and 60s, you did not have a primary emphasis on Gethsemane. And now starting in the 90s and since, you see something a little bit more balanced, both Gethsemane and the cross.
Eric 03:28 And so I think it’s partly a function of when most of us grew up. We grew up and it was a Gethsemane [emphasis.] And, you know, Bob Millet used to also say that it’s natural for us to teach to our distinctives. Because we have an understanding of Gethsemane, thanks to Mosiah 3 and Doctrine & Covenants, section 19, that others don’t. We really emphasize that. And I would add to what Bob said, I think sometimes we also react–this is not a positive thing. We react against what we perceive as the excesses of others. We thought people were focusing on the cross and suffering too much. So, we were skittish of the cross, and we wanted to emphasize Gethsemane, because we knew more about that. What I like to teach in New Testament context is it’s not a discrete one-time atoning event, it’s an atoning journey: Gethsemane, to the cross, and then all the way the garden tomb. In the Book of Mormon, atonement sometimes means atonement for sin, but usually it’s almost everything Jesus has done. Redemption and Resurrection are both part of atonement. I take that journey all the way to the empty tomb, and maybe even to the ascension, so that you’ve got a whole spectrum of things that Jesus did. That’s why I like to call it an atoning journey. Deidre, take that and run with it.
Deidre 04:37 Yes. Thank you for going first, Eric, because you put that much more diplomatically than I will. I mean, I will just say, I think we have a tendency, within the Church, that we need to guard against, which is to define ourselves oppositionally to other denominations in Christianity. I think that’s part of what we see happening there. Eric put that much more nicely than I would have. But I think we have to guard against that. Another example could be a figure like Mary. I mean, we really don’t talk about Mary, very often, within the Church. But she’s important. And she’s important in the uniquely Latter-day Saint canon. I think part of how we account for that is trying to demarcate ourselves from other traditions. And so, I think we need to be careful about that. And just as Eric is saying, [we need to] really embrace all aspects of the Atonement, because they’re all critical, and they’re all critical within Latter-day Saint theology. And I think it’s absolutely right that we hold on to these distinctives, as Eric put it, but also embrace the cross, which is absolutely crucial. I mean, the Book of Mormon talks about the cross extensively. Jacob says, we all need to take up our cross.
Eric 06:06 And participate in some way.
Deidre 06:09 Yes, exactly. So, we need to understand what that means and that it’s absolutely central to what it means to be a Latter-day Saint, instead of focusing too much on what demarcates us from other traditions. But I am going to look up your answer now, Rick, and I’m going to use yours next time someone asks me, I’m sure.
Did Bruce McConkie Get Atonement Wrong?
GT 06:35 So, Eric, am I getting this right? Are you telling me that Bruce got it wrong?
Eric 06:42 I would say that Elder McConkie was emphasizing something that was very important and that he felt was necessary to emphasize.
GT 06:51 Okay.
Eric 06:52 How was that for diplomatic?
GT 06:54 That was very diplomatic. How about you Deidre? Did Bruce get it wrong?
Deidre 07:03 I’m not going respond to that one. (All chuckling)
GT 07:04 Come on.
Eric 07:05 Actually, let me jump in here to defend Elder McConkie for a moment. Because even though your friend took out of one of the editions of Mormon Doctrine, a particular approach, let’s all refer to Elder McConkie’s rightly famous final testimony, where he talked about Gethsemane and the cross, actually three gardens. I mean, he talked about the Garden of Eden and then the Garden of Gethsemane and then the Garden Tomb. But remember, he was the one–and he, actually, was the one who first clued me into the fact there’s more to the cross than I knew, as someone growing up in the 70s. He said, “On the cross the infinite agonies of Gethsemane recurred. And not that we have favorites, but Elder, now President Holland also gave me more information with that, when he talked. He was the one who actually gave me this idea of atoning journey, when he talked about what Jesus had do single-handedly, not just in Gethsemane, but during the betrayal, during the arrest, how he was alone, even on the cross. He had cried out to His Father. So, I would say, even if they emphasize, for whatever reason, a particular aspect, an older–there was a pattern in the mid-20th century of emphasizing Gethsemane, in the most important speech of his apostolic career, I would argue, that Elder McConkie said the cross was absolutely essential.
GT 08:30 Ok. Well, here, I’ll give you the Reader’s Digest version of what I said. I actually agreed with Elder McConkie. (Chuckling) But Eric, I liked your answer better, that it’s more than just Gethsemane, it includes the cross and the ascension and the resurrection, as well. And I like that answer. I think that’s great. And I think that we should emphasize that more.
Deidre 08:51 I think one point to make about why both moments are important, too, is we get a sense in our understanding of Gethsemane, that there’s something maybe more agentic happening there, that this is something that that Jesus willingly takes on. With the cross, certainly, there’s more a sense that Christ is willing, but he’s also being subjected, obviously, to the cruel behavior of other human beings. I think there’s also something about that, for us to think about, in terms of how we experience suffering, as well. Both moments matter. That part of what Christ takes on in the Atonement, is understanding the experience of being a victim, understanding the experience of being the victim of cruel and senseless violence. That speaks to part of what we experience as human beings and part of what he is able to empathize with. And to use language of the Book of Mormon, to succor us. So, I think, even just on that level, it’s really helpful to think about all of these moments being part of Christ’s experience, part of what the atonement affects and part of how it supports us and redeems us as human beings.
Eric 10:09 This is a new thought to me. So, I’m not going to articulate it very well, because it’s just coming into my mind now. But one of the things the Book of Hebrews talks about is we have this Redeemer who knows how to succor us in our experiences. We have this idea that we have a just judge who will judge us fairly, because Christ has experienced those things. I mean, this is actually where not so much moral influence, but the participation comes into play. Let me just take a couple of other points on that journey. To use President Holland’s terminology, it’s easy to focus on Gethsemane and it’s easy to focus on the cross, now. And we’re bringing in resurrection. But what about the in between Gethsemane and the cross, where Jesus could say to us at our moment of judgment, I understand you. I understand where you were. So, Jesus is betrayed by a friend. What woman or man, for that matter, betrayed by a spouse, can say to Jesus, “You don’t know what it was like to be betrayed.” He’s abandoned by his friends. Who of us who’s been abandoned can say to Jesus, “You don’t know what that’s like.” He was abused. I don’t want to be autobiographical, here, but what fifth grader beat up behind the dumpster by his two best friends will say that Jesus doesn’t know what it’s like to be beat and spit upon and reviled. Who of us who has been wrongly or falsely judged, can say, when Jesus stood before the Jewish leaders or Pilate and was judged falsely, “You don’t know what that’s like.”
Eric 11:40 See, that’s why this model, this atoning journey, it’s not just the moment of taking upon himself the crushing weight, our sins, sorrows, afflictions, heartaches, disappointments, which press the blood out of him like an olive press. And it’s not just having those things carried to the cross and ending there. But it’s all those steps in between, as well. The Doctrine & Covenants says he has descended below all these things. In Alma 7, one of the great Christological contributions to the Book of Mormon, when Alma re-articulates what Isaiah said, and said [that] he knows how to succor. What does succor mean? It’s Latin for, not just helps, but runs to help us. Let me bring President Nelson in for a moment. One of the things, because I’m really interested in Holy Week and Easter, for a number of reasons, that’s another conversation for another time. But in a project that a friend of mine and I did, Trevan Hatch and I did, we ended with a quote from President Nelson. President Nelson is really big on correct terms and correct names. He encouraged us not just to talk about the atonement as a discrete or abstract concept. He wants us to personalize it, it’s the Atonement of Jesus Christ. That’s the thing, it’s everything Jesus experienced, suffered and did for us, which changes us, which overcomes the consequences, which is triumphing or victorious, et cetera, which is paying the price. I remember, this was actually a nascent thought of mine, long before I heard President Nelson say this. But I remember one semester when I was teaching in Jerusalem, I asked my students–because the atonement just trips off our tongue so easily, mostly because of the Book of Mormon. And we mentioned this in our introduction, that we talk about atonement. I mean, specialists, theoreticians, theologians talk about atonement theory all the time. But most practitioners of Christianity don’t talk about atonement as much, because it’s primarily an Old Testament, not a New Testament thing. But the Book of Mormon uses that term so much. And so, I asked my students I said, “Next time you’re about to testify or talk about the atonement, I want you to not use the word atonement. Find some other way to express what it is.” They’re like, “Well, what will we say?” I said, “Well, here’s a shorthand. It’s not very short, the saving, suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Connect it to Jesus. Personalize it. Now, this was for an academic audience. So, it’s called, Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement, but it really should have been subtitled, What Jesus Did for Us, What Jesus Experienced for Us. But I think that’s such a valuable, not just piece of counsel, but teaching by President Nelson. It’s the Atonement of Jesus Christ, what he has done that make us one with the Father and one with him.
Womanist View of Atonement
GT 14:16 Well, very good. I mean, the thought, while you were talking, there that popped into my head was, well, Jesus suffered all things, and especially with Deidre here, there’s certain things as a man that he couldn’t have had suffered. He couldn’t have suffered childbirth. He couldn’t have suffered the loss of a child or whatever. And so, how does, maybe a womanist, or a feminist theology look at those sorts of things? Because clearly, as a man, he couldn’t have suffered some of those losses that women experience.
Deidre 14:55 Yeah, I mean, I want to be cautious about that and the claims we make about that and how literally or metaphorically we think about the suffering that he experienced. I mean, the reality is our Scripture intimates that atonement is akin to childbirth. God often expresses God’s self, in the Hebrew Bible, specifically, about having this maternal relationship to us and with clear implications around redemption and atonement. So, I want to be cautious about overly limiting what Christ experiences or how similar or dissimilar it is. I mean, I think specifically, as a feminist, part of what we want to think about is, does Christ understand what it is to be marginalized? Does Christ understand what it is to be oppressed? And fairly, yes. I mean, this is a figure who is living in an occupied territory and is murdered in the cruelest manner, in a state-sponsored murder. I mean, there are lots of ways that we can think about the way that Christ takes on human experience that aren’t always obvious in the ways that we’re thinking about, all the time. And so, I really want to be careful about setting limits on that, that are too literal or overly defined.
GT 16:35 That’s good.
{End of Part 4}
Copyright © 2024
Gospel Tangents
All Rights Reserved
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 17:32 — 16.1MB) | Embed
Subscribe: Email | | More
