Jesus' Suffering In Gethsemane

[Uncle Dale]

Suffering in the Garden was one portion of His suffering...the other took place on

the cross. Both are significant, and together they completed the atonement as

it had been ordained from the beginning.

Bernard

It is not my understanding that God foreordains anybody's "suffering" in order to "complete" any

sort of atonement. Rather, as I asserted previously, God's forgiveness and redemption has been from

all eternity. And yet, to catch our attention (I do not know any more concise way of saying it), Jesus

knew, and acted out the passion agonies -- knew long before the fact, that his disciples and friends

would melt away at the end. He who loved without reservation had a mere handful of those who professed

to love him, stick with him.

To my way of thinking, no physical suffering could match the spiritual anguish of seeing those who have

loved you and spread your gospel desert you when their presence is most needed/expected.

Can the human mind fathom redemption? No, it cannot -- and we who should be his latter day disciples

end up bickering over ideas, and "maybes," and "I thinks." We seem determined to re-crucify Jesus on

a regular basis, with our contentious response to his gospel.

1. It was prophesied by a Book of Mormon prophet

2. The prophecy was fulfilled in the New Testament

3. Jesus verified the specific event himself in one of the most significant sections of the D&C

Bernard

That is all good and well for Mormons to tell each other -- but what message does it carry to those

outside of LDS ranks? Even the RLDS would not insist upon such an interpretation -- and CoC has

long since lost interest in the subject altogether. May the FLDS would still affirm the three points.

Mormonism seems to have but one message to us "outsiders" here -- and that is "convert and accept

the standard works as your source for the truth."

But that message does not reach the ears of those of us who are both genuinely interested in the passion

narrative, and are interested in various interpretations of atonement, voiced in various religious views.

Until LDS scholars find some firmer ground, upon which to base their dialogue with non-Mormons, I'm

convinced that nobody outside of the Church is really listening.

UD

[Bernard Gui]

name='cksalmon' date='Sep 2 2007, 10:32 AM' post='1208252953'

The footnote apparently follows the suggestion of Johannes de Zwaan (in Expositor VI.xii, 452ff.), who sees to loipon in a commercial sense (but one relating to Judas's receipt of the 30 pieces of silver ["the money has been paid"] rather than the Atonement). De Zwaan's reading is obscure enough. But the linkage you've suggested between the relevant phrase (??????????? ?? ?????? ??? ?????????? / ?atheudete to lipon kai anapauesthe) and the completion of the Atonement has no support in any readings I've seen of the passage...

The third ironical question ("the end is far away?") makes more sense contextually than the obscure and only faintly-attested commercial sense adopted by de Zwaan.

I'm no Greek scholar, but I think the word in question is "apechei," not "loipon." I'm curious why the many able scholars of the New English Bible would choose such an obscure reference to put in a footnote with no other explanation. According to the Preface, the text, and especially problematic passages which are

footnoted, passed through a rigorous system of committees and panels. I guess this one slipped through unnoticed.

I'm not surprised that you don't find this in any of your readings because, as far as I know, this is exclusively an LDS concept.

It is an interesting passage, but I see nothing here about Jesus commenting on the completion of the Atonement. Were one to read the passage in this way, I'm afraid the presupposition would be predetermining one's conclusion.

How so? From my point of view, these are Jesus' words as he leaves his experience in the Garden.

If he said, "the account has been settled," it could very well refer to the price he just paid with his

own anguish and blood, settling the account of our sins with the justice of the Father. He says this

before he mentions Judas' betrayal.

If this translation is possible, it could easily lend evidence to LDS belief and scripture that were in place

long before it was proposed. Either way, it is interesting and provocative.

Bernard

[paulhadik]

Uncle Dale:

i don't attend churches where calisthenics or hollerin' are practiced so can't comment. Your behavior during the communion sounds just plain rude if I may...most churches look at communion as a very important rite and practice closed communion. It is not meant to discourage visitors as much as it is to keep the practice serious for those who are living as they should. Can I as a non-mormon use my aching knees as an excuse to get into the Temple?

I will assume you meant Enoch and Elijah not Ezekiel. You surely understand there is more to death in Scripture than just physical passing away. There is separation from a Holy God. It is always His mercy that reunites with Him. From before the foundations of the earth His redeemed are allowed fellowship with Him due to the final sacrifice of His Son on the cross.

If he had merely suffered in Gethsemane and not been crucified what would that have availed? The atonement can exist without the Garden but is worthless without the cross.

As for the parable the point was not the manner of death, the message was the expected response of the Father to the murder of His Son. He was talking to the chief priests and elders and made the point very clear to them as they demanded to know the source of His authority.

paul

[Bernard Gui]

Mormonism seems to have but one message to us "outsiders" here -- and that is "convert and accept

the standard works as your source for the truth."

But that message does not reach the ears of those of us who are both genuinely interested in the passion

narrative, and are interested in various interpretations of atonement, voiced in various religious views.

Until LDS scholars find some firmer ground, upon which to base their dialogue with non-Mormons, I'm

convinced that nobody outside of the Church is really listening.

Well, shoot! All this time I thought this was an LDS discussion board.

I'm having a hard time understanding your heartburn over the idea that part of the atonement,

a very significant part, was wrought in the Garden. This is no way diminishes the suffering on

the cross. Jesus clearly suffered greatly in the garden, so much so that he needed angelic

ministration to bear it. I don't think it is sufficient to say that he was simply anticipating the cross or

mourning the failures of his disciples. There is more to it than is in the NT text, and that is found

in modern scripture. I can simply share what I believe. Convincing anyone that it is correct...that's

up to the Holy Spirit.

Bernard

[Uncle Dale]

Uncle Dale:

i don't attend churches where calisthenics or hollerin' are practiced so can't comment. Your behavior during the communion sounds just plain rude if I may...most churches look at communion as a very important rite and practice closed communion. It is not meant to discourage visitors as much as it is to keep the practice serious for those who are living as they should.

Well, as I was sprinkled as an infant, by relatives in Minnesota who were then in communion with the

LCMS, and was handed a LCMS confirmation class completion certificate when a teenager (despite my

lack of interest in such things -- all the kids were given one), I saw no harm in joining the rest at the

rail, despite my Latter Day Saint identification. What was "rude," in my estimation, is that I should have

been the only adult in a chapel of 200, who was excluded from "breaking bread in remembrance of him."

Can I as a non-mormon use my aching knees as an excuse to get into the Temple?

The Community of Christ Temples? Yes, I suppose that would be sufficient excuse to let you in.

The last time I sought entry, I could still hobble in without my wheelchair -- so I didn't notice if they

had handicap-ramps or not. At any rate, I suppose there would be somebody present to assist and

give a welcome to such a non-member visitor, non-mormon or otherwise..

I will assume you meant Enoch and Elijah not Ezekiel. You surely understand there is more to death

in Scripture than just physical passing away. There is separation from a Holy God. It is always His

mercy that reunites with Him. From before the foundations of the earth His redeemed are allowed

fellowship with Him due to the final sacrifice of His Son on the cross.

I suppose that unitarians (small u), just naturally see things differently. At any rate, I suspect that

there has been death in this corner of the galaxy for several billions of years now, and that whether

it be physical, or more than physical, that it exercises no power over God. I place my fate in His hands.

If he had merely suffered in Gethsemane and not been crucified what would that have availed? The atonement can exist without the Garden but is worthless without the cross.

I don't see it that way -- but I know that many people do, so I'm not inclined to argue. I recently sat

in for several weeks on a United Methodist blble-study class, and found the diversity of views there

expressed in these matters to be very refreshing. I learned a little from everybody, and a lot in all.

As for the parable the point was not the manner of death, the message was the expected response of the Father to the murder of His Son. He was talking to the chief priests and elders and made the point very clear to them as they demanded to know the source of His authority.

paul

I do not know for certain that he expected to be stoned -- but it is one possibility I keep in mind. Surely

he knew he was headed towards an execution of some sort, and that the majority of his disciples would

not at first understand why that was inevitable.

UD

[jadams_4242]

I sincerely believe that the "atonement" is timeless -- that it was in God's Being from all eternity.

There was a necessary turning point in human history however -- and that turning point is "played out"

all through the passion story. Each element of the narrative reflects or actualizes the atonement ---

but if there is one central moment to all of it, that moment comes in the garden, when Jesus submits

to the will of Heavenly Father.

No need to measure the blood supposedly flowing from his skin, or any other physical aspect. For, as

I just said, God's forgiveness is from all eternity.

There was no one, magical moment when the Mosaic Law was ended and the "New Covenant" began --

rather, one flows into the other, like a tributary into a river.

Before we ever repent, we are forgiven and our sins remitted --- but we do not see it that way from

our limited existence in time and space. For us, events happen sequentially -- and thus, for each of us,

the "first principles of the gospel" happen in a given sequence.

UD

Correct! except that, even though it probably was in gods being from the get go, it still had to

be played out in his plan to become effective for the mortal man to be able to repent.

In other words it needed to have happened in order to become effective.

[Uncle Dale]

Well, shoot! All this time I thought this was an LDS discussion board.

Indeed it is -- and the rest of us expect that a certain amount of the talk here will be mutual counsel,

instruction and exhortation among the Mormons.

But this MB is also an opportunity for the LDS to interact with non-Mormons in various ways and upon

the consideration of various topics of religion.

The atonement is a subject of discussion to which the Latter Day Saints might constructively contribute

insights and realizations ---- but not as tautologies which merely reference latter day scripture. That

approach will not be very effective. It appears to me that Mormons are still searching for ways to

participate in larger discussions and for ways to make significant contributions -- not just as "generic"

translators of Qumran texts, or some such cooperation -- but as accepted members of the larger religious

scholarly community. I saw the RLDS go through this transition in the 1970s, and it is still far from

complete. These things take time.

I'm having a hard time understanding your heartburn over the idea that part of the atonement,

a very significant part, was wrought in the Garden. This is no way diminishes the suffering on

the cross. Jesus clearly suffered greatly in the garden, so much so that he needed angelic

ministration to bear it.

Then again, I do not see suffering as an essential part of atonement and redemption. I realize that a

great deal of scriptural and apologetic language follows a suffering, bloody sacrifice paradigm, but

that is not where my realizations are centered. Thus, for me, the humilation before Pilate, the prayer

in the garden, the crucifixion, the rejection by Peter, etc. are all just different facets of the same thing.

It is obvious that I read the scriptures far, far less literally than you do -- but I read them prayerfully

and with some training from dedicated teachers -- I do not simply dismiss what I read there.

I don't think it is sufficient to say that he was simply anticipating the cross or

mourning the failures of his disciples. There is more to it than is in the NT text, and that is found

in modern scripture. I can simply share what I believe. Convincing anyone that it is correct...that's

up to the Holy Spirit.

Bernard

I think you missed my point ---- think of it this way. You go to a meeting of your extended family and

old friends, and practically nobody shows up. Or, to intensify the rejection, they do all show up, but

tell you that they no longer love you.

Don't ponder the rejection intellectually -- just empathize with Jesus, as to how it must have felt -- to

die an agonizing death, for a world in which you love all as your dearest family member, but they turn

their backs on you.

UD

[Anijen]

Geez Uncle Dale:

what kind of churches have you visited? I think most churches don't usually have hymn police patrolling to see who does or does not sing; most of us would just assume you sing like a toad and appreciate your silence for what it is, sparing the rest of us...

Is there a hymn "Power in the Sweat"?

I will confess I have never understood the point of this teaching, that the atonement and the Garden are linked but you have difficulty proving it with Scripture. Again from Eden onwards death is always the penalty and the price

Oh I don't know the Old Testament verses support a strong cross and garden type suffering. Both seem legit

Also his taking the stripes by the Romans not on the cross or in the garden but still part of the Atonement. The passion (the movie) put a lot of emphasis on this part.

[BCSpace]

I'm inclined to go along with the consensus textual scholarship on this one.

As am I, but yours didn't seem to follow. Too many convoluted assumptions. The similarities are too strong and that's the route I took. To each his own.

[cksalmon]

I'm no Greek scholar, but I think the word in question is "apechei," not "loipon." I'm curious why the many able scholars of the New English Bible would choose such an obscure reference to put in a footnote with no other explanation. According to the Preface, the text, and especially problematic passages which are

footnoted, passed through a rigorous system of committees and panels. I guess this one slipped through unnoticed.

Hi Bernard--

You're absolutely correct about apechei. (I'd misconstrued the point Taylor was making about de Zwaan's reading vis-a-vis his own conflated rendering of 41b-c). De Zwaan interprets apechei (14b) in a commercial sense. Taylor comments that de Zwaan's interpretation "reads a great deal into apechei"--i.e., a great deal that Taylor doesn't find there.

Apechei is used impersonally in 14.41--that is, the verb has no expressed subject in the Greek. The subject "account" in the reading "the account is settled" is completely supplied by certain interpreters, but does not appear in the Greek itself. So, the Greek here is a single word apechei / "settled," with "it is" supplied (thus, "it is settled").

Taylor conflates 14b-c and renders the reconstructed phrase as an ironical question "The end is far away?"

I'm curious why the many able scholars of the New English Bible would choose such an obscure reference to put in a footnote with no other explanation.

But, of course, I'm not disagreeing with their scholarship or downplaying their abilities. I trust them. They obviously thought the footnoted possibility was the weaker reading of the passage. Thus, they opted for the stronger option. I say we should probably defer to them.

The problem is that the impersonal use of the verb apecho is rare and the options are limited for attempting to reconstruct its meaning in context. The UBS Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament lists exactly two options for the impersonal use of the verb: "perhaps 'it is enough' or 'the account is settled.'"

If this translation is possible, it could easily lend evidence to LDS belief and scripture that were in place long before it was proposed.

Well, the translation certainly is possible. But the "evidence" in that case would be a merely possible, but not preferred, reading of an obscure impersonal verb. As evidence goes, it's weak, IMHO.

Best.

CKS

[Uncle Dale]

Oh I don't know the Old Testament verses support a strong cross and garden type suffering.

Both seem legit

And yet there are spiritual traditions that look at the Hebrew Bible differently. The Jews themselves

read it all in the context of salvation for the covenant community. In ancient times a ruler would "cut"

a covenant with a group of people, sacrificing one of their animals and laying down a strict "testament"

to the covenant -- an agreement by which he extended his protection in exchange for their obedience.

The implication in the bloody sacrifice was that, if they did not obey, they themselves would suffer death.

That is a different context and interpretation of the grounds for redemption than Christians read into

the same biblical texts.

There were also gnostics, kabbalahists, and Essenes who read the old scriptures differently than the

Christians did. Probably the Essenes and folks at Qumran were generally closer to the first Christians

in some theology, however.

I am interested in those alternative religious traditions -- and how they experienced what they perceived

to be their relationship with God. I think that Latter Day Saints might learn a little from them.

Also his taking the stripes by the Romans not on the cross or in the garden but still part of the Atonement. The passion (the movie) put a lot of emphasis on this part.

I understand the argument -- and that bloody sacrifice and vicarious sacrifice were very real religious

beliefs/practices/precepts in biblical times. But Universalists and Unitarians tend to look at those events

in ways different from mainstream Christians. I am also interested in those religious traditions.

Uncle Dale