The Atonement as a mechanism to bring us together to feast?

[rcthompson88]

I was recently reading a non-LDS book about Holy Week. One of the points raised in the book was a critique of the Substitution Theory of the Atonement or the idea that Christ's suffering and death was a substitution for our own suffering owed through sin. Their basis for this critique comes from the fact that animal sacrifices, such as ones at Passover or Yom Kippur, were not sacrifices where pain or suffering was meant to be inflicted on the sacrifice. Instead, it was to be a quick and efficient process.

Once sacrificed, the offering was often part of a family and community feast, a celebration. The New Testament is full of imagery of wedding feasts, of feeding the 5000, being called to gather and feast on Christ's flesh and blood, the last supper, and other examples of festive meals.

As an incredibly introverted person, I like to think about the Atonement as my personal path with the Savior toward forgiveness and salvation. I like to think grace and my work can get my family and me along, and going to church each Sunday is just a part of that.

This idea of sacrifice and atonement bringing us together for feasting is one i have not thought much about before, and I don't really know if I have even properly articulated what my thoughts are. Have you had any thoughts around this idea, or are there any church talks or articles I could be pointed to about a communal and festive aspect of the Atonement?

Edited April 22, 2023 by rcthompson88
Missing word

[zil2]

Welcome to ThirdHour, @rcthompson88!

While there might be something to be gleaned from part of the author's idea, I think it's important to note that the author is lacking the additional understanding we have through the restoration.  Therefore, don't let it carry you away from a true understanding.

At first blush, I find myself uncomfortable mixing the words "festive" and "Atonement" together - there wasn't really anything "festive" about it in my mind.  Glorious and merciful, and horrific and tragic, sure, but festive?

If Christ's suffering and death were not necessary to atone for our sins, then, what? Are we to believe they were pointless or needless?  Just a fluke of the culture?  We are taught they were necessary.  Whether they constitute a 1-to-1 substitution for our own seems unnecessarily mathematical and legalistic - as pointless a discussion as the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin.  Christ himself tells us that he suffered so that we would not have to, if we would repent:

Quote

D&C 19

15 Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.

16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;

17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

Just because the type or symbol wasn't needlessly tortured (it was a symbol, after all, and not exactly a willing or understanding participant), does not argue against the reality or meaning of all the Savior did.  The animal's suffering wouldn't have helped anything (and may well have damaged the psyche of those instructed to carry out the torture).  The sacrifice was simply a reminder of what would one day happen.  It was an instructional aid.  And it was the faith (in that future sacrifice) that gave it meaning, not the suffering or death or other ritualistic elements - those were just there for reminders and to give the Israelites a way to obey, IMO.

All that said, we do celebrate, at Easter, both the fact that our Lord atoned for our sins and the fact that he completed that act through his resurrection.  And I expect many a family feasts at Easter.  This last conference, we were asked to create more and more meaningful / appropriate Easter traditions in our families, and a few here have posted about having their own Seder...

Those are my initial reactions to the ideas presented, FWIW.

[mikbone]

1 hour ago, rcthompson88 said:

or are there any church talks or articles I could be pointed to about a communal and festive aspect of the Atonement?

The last supper.

Passover feast.

Parable of the wedding feast.  

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2022/10/46bednar?lang=eng

I’m sure I could go on and on.

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

The last supper.

Passover feast.

Parable of the wedding feast.  

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2022/10/46bednar?lang=eng

I’m sure I could go on and on.

Well, and my understanding is that initially early Christian house churches celebrated the Sacrament/ Eucharist/ Lord’s supper in the context of a full meal.

3 hours ago, rcthompson88 said:

I was recently reading a non-LDS book about Holy Week. One of the points raised in the book was a critique of the Substitution Theory of the Atonement or the idea that Christ's suffering and death was a substitution for our own suffering owed through sin. Their basis for this critique comes from the fact that animal sacrifices, such as ones at Passover or Yom Kippur, were not sacrifices where pain or suffering was meant to be inflicted on the sacrifice. Instead, it was to be a quick and efficient process.

God teaches a lot through symbol/ allegory/ analogy; but every symbol/ allegory/ analogy breaks down at a certain level.  I don’t think the primary point of the Mosaic sacrifices was to emphasize the pain that Jesus would go through (though I imagine that for a lamb, having its throat slit until it bleeds to death is no picnic); the point was something pure and blameless being killed prematurely through no fault of its own and offering relatively little resistance in the process.

Now, I *do* think that the penal substitution paradigm of atonement has more limitations than we in the Church might be used to pointing out.  The way we talk about it often leaves the impression that even if a person repented, and even if they had truly had their heart changed and through Christ’s grace had developed not only an determination to serve Him eternally, but the actual capacity to do so perfectly, and even if God in His omnipotence knew that the penitence was sincere and in his parental love stood ready to receive the sinner back into His arms—even for all of that, our rhetoric often suggests that we *still* could not be saved because there’s some third-party entity called “JUSTICE” (or:  the “justice” attribute of God the Father) to whom/ which somebody, even if not the sinner, needs to “pay the price” by feeling the full pain of the sinner’s misdeeds so that some cosmic account of moral debits and credits can be brought back into balance.  Maybe I just need to reread Alma’s sermon to Corianton; but at the moment I’m not quite convinced that’s exactly how the process actually works.  Maybe it’s more that our understanding of Christ’s suffering seals our devotion to Him, and binds us to the people we have wronged (and vice-versus) so that, if we will, we can forgive past outraged and enjoy Heaven together.  

Edited April 22, 2023 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Well, and my understanding is that initially early Christian house churches celebrated the Sacrament/ Eucharist/ Lord’s supper in the context of a full meal.

God teaches a lot through symbol/ allegory/ analogy; but every symbol/ allegory/ analogy breaks down at a certain level.  I don’t think the primary point of the Mosaic sacrifices was to emphasize the pain that Jesus would go through (though I imagine that for a lamb, having its throat slit until it bleeds to death is no picnic); the point was something pure and blameless being killed prematurely through no fault of its own and offering relatively little resistance in the process.

Now, I *do* think that the penal substitution paradigm of atonement has more limitations than we in the Church might be used to pointing out.  The way we talk about it often leaves the impression that even if a person repented, and even if they had truly had their heart changed and through Christ’s grace had developed not only an determination to serve Him eternally, but the actual capacity to do so perfectly, and even if God in His omnipotence knew that the penitence was sincere and in his parental love stood ready to receive the sinner back into His arms—even for all of that, our rhetoric often suggests that we *still* could not be saved because there’s some third-party entity called “JUSTICE” (or:  the “justice” attribute of God the Father) to whom/ which somebody, even if not the sinner, needs to “pay the price” by feeling the full pain of the sinner’s misdeeds so that some cosmic account of moral debits and credits can be brought back into balance.  Maybe I just need to reread Alma’s sermon to Corianton; but at the moment I’m not quite convinced that’s exactly how the process actually works.  Maybe it’s more that our understanding of Christ’s suffering seals our devotion to Him, and binds us to the people we have wronged (and vice-versus) so that, if we will, we can forgive past outraged and enjoy Heaven together.  

The mechanics of Christ's atoning sacrifice cannot possibly be understood without understanding exactly what the atonement of Jesus accomplishes. We understand that it brings us back to God, but what exactly does that mean, and how is it accomplished? These things form a part of "the mystery of Godliness", about which Elder McConkie said:

Is God omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, or are these descriptive designations part of the legends of sectarianism?

Are there three gods or one? Why does Jesus say his Father is greater than he, and Paul say Jesus is equal with the Father? Why the great scriptural emphasis on proclaiming that three gods are one, and that the Lord our God is one Lord?

What of the mystery of our Lord’s birth? Indeed, why should God even have a son? Is Jesus the Son of Man, or the Son of God, or is there a difference? Was it necessary to have a Savior and Redeemer, or is the Koran correct in teaching that God had no need for a son because Allah has but to speak and a thing is done?

By what power could Jesus atone for the sins of the world, or rise from death’s dark tomb, or ascend physically into heaven? Is the atonement truly infinite and eternal, applying to all worlds and all created things?

...

All these are but sample questions, questions that raise some of the issues relative to the mystery of godliness.

...

Gospel truths are known and understood only by the power of the Spirit. Eternal life—which is to know God—is such an infinitely great reward that men must study, ponder, and pray, with all their hearts, to gain the needed knowledge.

The Lord gives his truths line upon line and precept upon precept to those who believe and obey. Saving truths come by revelation to prophets, not by reason to false priests or doctors of debate, dissension, and divisiveness.

...

As we walk the razor’s edge—the razor that divides truth from near truths, which sometimes have a pleasing attraction—let us be mindful of these words of the Prophet Joseph Smith: “The Savior has the words of eternal life. Nothing else can profit us. . . . I advise all to go on to perfection, and search deeper and deeper into the mysteries of Godliness” (Teachings, p. 364).

The whole talk is very well worth reading and/or listening to.

For me, the bottom line is that we can and, eventually, must understand these things, but much of that understanding will likely be given us in the life to come. I suspect few of us will develop in this life sufficiently that we can actually grasp many of these things. That's not to say they are beyond understanding; they are not. But they may well be beyond our understanding today, right now, and even in this life. Let us in any case not decide that if we do not/cannot understand these things, that therefore means that these things are untrue or forever beyond us—or worse, that we can assign whatever meaning we like to these things, especially if such assignments please the world and make us more acceptable to the world.

[Traveler]

On 4/22/2023 at 10:43 AM, rcthompson88 said:

I was recently reading a non-LDS book about Holy Week. One of the points raised in the book was a critique of the Substitution Theory of the Atonement or the idea that Christ's suffering and death was a substitution for our own suffering owed through sin. Their basis for this critique comes from the fact that animal sacrifices, such as ones at Passover or Yom Kippur, were not sacrifices where pain or suffering was meant to be inflicted on the sacrifice. Instead, it was to be a quick and efficient process.

Once sacrificed, the offering was often part of a family and community feast, a celebration. The New Testament is full of imagery of wedding feasts, of feeding the 5000, being called to gather and feast on Christ's flesh and blood, the last supper, and other examples of festive meals.

As an incredibly introverted person, I like to think about the Atonement as my personal path with the Savior toward forgiveness and salvation. I like to think grace and my work can get my family and me along, and going to church each Sunday is just a part of that.

This idea of sacrifice and atonement bringing us together for feasting is one i have not thought much about before, and I don't really know if I have even properly articulated what my thoughts are. Have you had any thoughts around this idea, or are there any church talks or articles I could be pointed to about a communal and festive aspect of the Atonement?

Sometimes I ponder that many of a religious nature that are not connected to the modern revelations of the dispensation of the end of times miss critical elements of even the ancient revelations.  The concept of a religious celebration of a feast will not be properly understood without the concept or a covenant. 

Even the concept of the feast of the “Passover” is directly a celebration of covenant.  The tribes of Israel became a covenant nation through G-d’s deliverance of the “Passover”.

An interesting thing about Bible terminology.  When the first English Bible was translated from the ancient languages there were terms that had no English equivalent.   One of the reasons that Tindale was burned at the stake is that in his translation he made up some English terms when there was no actual translation.  Passover was one of those terms – another term was atonement.

It is my understanding that the only way to enjoy the marvelous works and blessings of G-d are through covenants.  That we give a prayer or blessing on our food that we partake as a covenant with G-d.  Thus, I believe that to sup with G-d is also by covenant.

 

BTW @rcthompson88  welcome to the forum.

 

The Traveler

[CV75]

On 4/22/2023 at 12:43 PM, rcthompson88 said:

I was recently reading a non-LDS book about Holy Week. One of the points raised in the book was a critique of the Substitution Theory of the Atonement or the idea that Christ's suffering and death was a substitution for our own suffering owed through sin. Their basis for this critique comes from the fact that animal sacrifices, such as ones at Passover or Yom Kippur, were not sacrifices where pain or suffering was meant to be inflicted on the sacrifice. Instead, it was to be a quick and efficient process.

Once sacrificed, the offering was often part of a family and community feast, a celebration. The New Testament is full of imagery of wedding feasts, of feeding the 5000, being called to gather and feast on Christ's flesh and blood, the last supper, and other examples of festive meals.

As an incredibly introverted person, I like to think about the Atonement as my personal path with the Savior toward forgiveness and salvation. I like to think grace and my work can get my family and me along, and going to church each Sunday is just a part of that.

This idea of sacrifice and atonement bringing us together for feasting is one i have not thought much about before, and I don't really know if I have even properly articulated what my thoughts are. Have you had any thoughts around this idea, or are there any church talks or articles I could be pointed to about a communal and festive aspect of the Atonement?

Here is a good treatment of the topic: One in Christ (churchofjesuschrist.org)

"I say again that it is only in and through our individual loyalty to and love of Jesus Christ that we can hope to be one—one within, one at home, one in the Church, eventually one in Zion, and above all, one with the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost."

I think that, just as joy is better than pleasure, being of one heart and mind is better than community and peacemaking is better than festivity.