How did the atonement work?

[UtahDan]

As I understand it, we as LDS believe that Christ suffered for the sins of mankind in the garden. We also believe that in order for the atonement to be accomplished that the only sinless man literally had to be sacrificed.

Are we talking about two different things here? If Christ suffered all of our sins in the garden then justice was satisfied at that point. Why would it be necessary for him to also be killed? If the shedding of blood is prerequisite to the atonement, how could it have been accomplished BEFORE he was crucified, isn't that backwards?

Why would it not be sufficient to surrender His body to disease or something else and accomplish the ressurection that way? later on?

What happens if He endures the graden and then is not crucified? This doesn't make that much sense to me.

What to me is a more elegant argument is that the atonement is accomplished as He lays down his life and suffers on the cross, the Father having withdrawn from him. But I don't think that is what we believe. I think we are unique in the Christian world in thinking that the atonement has anything to do wtih what happened in the garden aren't we?

I know that the atonement occurred, but the sequence of events somehow doesn't click for me. What do people think?

[Colly Wolly]

As far as I understand it, the atonement occurred in the garden and also on the cross. Christ's suffering in the garden was the beginning of the atonement, and the atonement was culminated on the cross when the Spirit withdrew and Christ said Father why hast thou forsaken me. The final step in Christ's suffering on our behalf was when he gave up the ghost and died. Hence, suffer, bleed, and die for us.

[Surfah]

The purpose of the atonement as I understand it is to provide a way for imperfect mortals to have eternal life. Death was absolutely necessary for the atonement to be complete and infinite. Yes, Christ suffered the sins of the world in the Garden, but it wasn't until he died that the atonement was complete. On the cross he truly descended below all and in death he passed the culmination of mortal experience. I speculate that his suffering on the cross was necessary for Heavenly Father to withdraw his spirit from Christ which had sustained him throughout the agony of the last hours of his life. Christ never did anything in his life to warrant a withdrawl of the spirit. He had to die, in order to return to his father's prescence as we all will to be judged. His sacrifice and perfect life enabled him to be accepted back into the Father's presence without the need of a savior and to receive the rewards of eternal lives and resurrection. Thus providing for us a mediator to go before the father who can plead on our behalf as to not make his sacrifice in vain.

At least that's what I have been able to work out.

But I agree with you in our unique stance on the atonement in the Garden of Gethsemane. But I don't believe it's one or the other, meaning the Garden or cross. The atonement required both.

[bluegoose]

This is a good question, that also came up in our EQ yesterday.

I agree that his death on the cross was just as necessary to fulfillment of the atonement as the suffering in the garden. The suffering in the garden overcomes sin, while his death on the cross overcomes death. In dying as a willing and unblemished sacrifice, he was awarded the keys of the resurrection, making it possible for all to receive the gift. Prior to that moment on the cross, these keys were inactive and would remain so, until his role was fulfilled.

In re-reading your original post, I'm not sure if this totally addresses your initial query. But imho, I think the key factor involved in the crucification (of any other form of death at the hands of his accusers) was his receiving the keys over death, which he did not receive through his suffering in the garden.

This likely very much oversimplified, but it is feeble understanding up to this point.

[DrumNFeather]

I wonder if part of it...even if only a small part of it was the state of the times back then, meaning, the Romans didn't know the role of his crucifixtion in the greater plan now recognized by the Christian world. Perhaps Gethsemane was the necessary part of the Atonement and the Crucifixtion was just a biproduct of his ministry and the state of the world at that time. Not saying it wasn't just as necessary, because I think in modern day christianity we understand better the concept of his sacrifice through visually understanding his suffering (The Passion Etc...) whereas it is probably hard for some to grasp what actually happened that night in the Garden.

[BYUHoopster]

My understanding of the atonement is that in the Garden, Jesus suffered the pains of the world but did not have the Spirit of His Father removed from him. In fact we know that he was comforted their by angels, and Brother McConkie believed that Michael was with him. On the cross however, the Spirit was taken from him and he had to suffer alone having all the pains of the world returned upon him.

I believe that the essence of the atonement was that Christ had to suffer more or worse than anybody has or will ever suffer. The atonement is not about suffering for X number of sins. I believe it is more about Christ suffering so that he can understand all of our pains. Therefore part of that suffering would necessitate Christ suffering death, even an awfully painful death.

Having said that I think the answer could be as simple as fulfilling prophecy. The real issue surrounds what exactly occurred in the Garden. My best guess is that most of the atonement is something that we cannot in anyway comprehend so we are not told.

[All-American]

My best answer is this:

The crucifixion embodies the idea of total rejection by mankind. Gethsemene seems to embody the idea of total rejection by God-- that is, it is the moment when the Savior was "made sin," as Paul puts it, thus becoming the guilty party and exposed to all the torments of the damned. The lines aren't exactly drawn-- for example, crucifixion carried with it the connotation that one was rejected of God as well as of man-- but that's the basic idea.

The atonement was to be an infinite and eternal atonement, which means its saving power could not be limited by time or reach. If the atonement involved the crucifixion alone, it would have been insufficient. If the atonement had involved Gethsemane alone, it would have been insufficient. The Savior's suffering, as Alma explained, had to cover the entire human experience, and to leave out anything would have rendered it finite, and thus inutil.

My belief regarding the cloak shielding our understanding of Gethsemene is that the Savior never wants us to understand what happened there. The scriptures are universally vague in speaking of the event, and the most detailed description (the Savior's own), is essentially "you don't know how horrible it was, and if I have my way, you never will":

"How sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.

"Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—

"Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men.

"Wherefore, I command you again to repent, lest I ahumble you with my almighty power; and that you confess your sins, lest you suffer these punishments of which I have spoken, of which in the smallest, yea, even in the least degree you have tasted at the time I withdrew my Spirit." (D&C 19:15-20)


Good reading found in Isaiah 53:

"WHO hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?

"For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

"He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

"Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

"But he was awounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

"All we like asheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

"He was aoppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the eslaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

"He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the btransgression of my people was he stricken.

"And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

"Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

"He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities."

[Dan]

... when I gave the atonement lesson one year ago (I was supposed to give it again this year but I was in Hawai'i the past week and a half) ...

<<<begin>>>

No facet of Christian theology has been more difficult than the problem of the atonement, the answering of the question "why is the salvation of men dependent upon Christ and his death." Four main theories developed historically, and today the overtones of all four are commonplace in Christianity.

The atonement is inextricably interwoven with the fall, which itself is fundamentally based on the nature of God and the origin of the spirit of man (as is the atonement itself, uncoincidentally). Since larger Christianity has never had a good understanding of these issues (we LDS ostensibly know far more about them than others, and I often doubt the depth of our own understanding), this has always, I would say unavoidably, been a difficult question in larger Christian theology.

If we assume that i) the atonement was an actual event, ii) that it happened for a reason, and iii) that we, LDS, may come to some approximate understanding of it, then the following explanation and commentary can be viewed in a different light.

1. Substitution

This was the earliest idea, that we are worthy of death, and Christ died as a substitute for us, in our place, as if he himself were a sin-offering in the Jewish temple. He took the sins of all men upon himself and died in our stead. Potential problems with this view include i) it smacks of human sacrifice, and ii) is it proper for one person to be punished for the misdeeds of another?

Why is this problematic? Except perhaps in the sense that it might appear to contradict God's own commandments, or otherwise seem "icky" to us. The first of these is unimportant, since God, as the Lawgiver, may declare the Law in whatever way best suits him. The second is irrelevant. If we assume that the atonement was indeed a case of one man being punished for the misdeeds of others, then the answer is obviously yes. That we may not be taken with the idea, or that our current societal model may not follow it, is again irrelevant. Human sacrifice is a stretch in that someone who loves another would freely push the loved one out of the way of a sppeding train, even if it would mean the death of the hero. Now, imagine all of humanity was standing on the tracks. Jesus nudging us off the tracks and giving his life in the process is a more apt view of the event, in my opinion.

When you see references to Christ taking upon him the sins of others, or being sacrificed for sin, they are alluding to a substitionary concept of atonement. However, historical treatment of an aspect of the atonement is not necessarily controlling, as one can easily imagine a scenario wherein a prophet, having a true and reasonably complete understanding of the atonement, used this type of language without any intention of referring specifically to this "substitutionary concept", but rather to his own, more complete, model.

2. Ransom

This idea dominated Christian soteriology in the middle ages; it has declined somewhat over time, but it is still kicking around. This idea is expressed by C. S. Lewis in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, for example. This theory focuses on the power and claims of the devil. Because of Adam's sin, the devil has a claim upon man which God recognizes. The souls of men are purchased by God who uses Christ as the purchase price. The devil is deceived into thinking that he can retain the soul of Christ, but once the transaction is done, Christ arises triumphant, because the devil cannot keep the soul of divinity in captivity.

Since this theory focused on the rights of the devil and the trickery of God, over time it came to be seen as somewhat unsatisfactory. (Whenever you see references to "ransom" or "redemption," those are allusions to this once dominant theory.)

Though this may (or may not) be historically accurate, there is no reason to suppose that this "ransom" model must of necessity hold the devil as the "payee". Current LDS thought along these lines seems to hold a sort of overriding law of justice as the "payee". Though this model may present its own difficulties, it is not any weaker than the "pay the devil" model, and certainly more in keeping with LDS thought and theology. Again, historical treatment of aspects of the atonement is not controlling.

3. Satisfaction

The dominance of the ransom theory was superseded in the twelfth century by St. Anselm's satisfaction theory, published in his important book Cur Deus Homo? [Why did God become Man?] Influenced by feudal conceptions of law, Anselm focused on the conflicting demands of God's own nature, as both absolute justice and absolute mercy. God's nature as absolute justice demanded that he become man and give satisfaction for the honor of God that was lost in the fall of man. Unless satisfaction is given, punishment must follow. Only a divine human being could give the necessary satisfaction, for the offense was infinite and required divinity, but it was at the same time human, a sin of mankind. By his voluntary and undeserved death Christ gained an infinite merit, which, being sinless, he did not need, but which was needed for the justification of fallen, sinful man.

You see here the theoretical ground for the notion of an "infinite" atonement. However, Anselm’s "satisfaction theory" does not predate "the notion of an 'infinite' atonement". This is easily disproved to those who accept the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

This theory removed the devil from the discussion and put the whole matter within the context of the moral problem of divine justice. For this reason, this theory tends to predominate today, whatever its involvement in medieval and feudal attitudes and practices. Aquinas basically follows this view. However, it would be awfully difficult to establish this view as anything other than sheer speculation. For example, perhaps "this theory tends to predominate today" because it is more true than other theories, and that truth is sensed by many Christians.

Luther and Calvin mixed into this theory strong penal and substitutionary concepts. Thus, Luther insisted that Christ became the greatest murderer, rapist, whatever horror you can think of, the world had ever seen or ever would see, because he literally took upon himself the sins of all men.

So when you see references like "that justice might be satisfied," or contrasts of mercy and justice, they are alluding to the satisfaction theory. But, again, historical treatment of models for the atonement are not controlling on today’s models.

4. Moral

Also in the twelfth century, Abelard, in what at the time was a heretical statement, denied the whole substitution-ransom-satisfaction framework of the atonement and held simply that Christ's voluntary sacrifice moves sinful man to a consciousness of guilt and so to repentance and a moral change of life. "I think therefore," he stated, "that the purpose and cause of the Incarnation was that He might illuminate the world by His wisdom and excite it to the love of Himself."

When you see references to Christ drawing all men unto him, they are allusions to this idea.

Most attempts to explain the atonement I have heard hopelessly mishmash these concepts together in a kind of atonement stew. However, some believe the atonement must be one or the other, or perhaps something completely different altogether. But if the blind men are doing their best to describe the elephant to the rest of the blind community in terms they can understand, then it might make very good sense for them to extol the elephant's simultaneous rope-like, snake-like, fan-like, wall-like, etc. properties, regardless of how much an "elephant stew" this might seem to make. Those blind men who wish to understand the elephant in terms comprehensible to them would therefore be foolish to reject their sages' teachings on the matter, notwithstanding the seemingly random, even contradictory doctrines they espouse.

5. Hybrid

See Cleon Skousen’s Appendix to “The First 2000 Years” for his interesting opinion regarding the mechanism of the atonement.

<<<end>>>

[Dan]

The term "Infinite Atonement" undoubtedly means numerous things, such as the boundless reach thereof. I think the primary meaning of the need for an infinite atonement is that it had to be by God. An atonement of a regular man just would not do for various reasons. As God is "Infinite" (as Infinite is His name), an atonement performed by God is aptly referred to as an Infinite Atonement, or in other words a God Atonement. Because it was performed by God, its reach is infinite as all things past, present and future are continually before God.