Jesus Christ was "crushed" for our sins in Gethsemane.

[BCSpace]

I was researching to counter a post from some non-LDS Christians about D&C 19:18, in which we read about the unique, or nearly unique, LDS doctrine that Jesus Christ suffered for sins in Gethsemane, and I found this. I don't recall seeing it elsewhere, but I'm sure I'm not the first. I don't often find myself having to address this criticism.

I was thinking that, like other aspects of the Atonement, surely it must have been foreshadowed and prophesied. I found this OT verse...

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
Isaiah 53:5

Delving deeper into Thayer's Lexicon, I see that the usages of bruised are all "crushed". Knowing that "Gethsemane" is "oil press," the symbolism pops into view. Jesus Christ was crushed under the weight of our sins in Gethsemane (oil press) such that he bled from every pore.

Feel free to critique this, whether or not you think it's a good way to support our doctrine. Perhaps this is also a different way to view the symbolism of olive oil.

[Duncan]

15 minutes ago, BCSpace said:

I was researching to counter a post from some non-LDS Christians about D&C 19:18, in which we read about the unique, or nearly unique, LDS doctrine that Jesus Christ suffered for sins in Gethsemane, and I found this. I don't recall seeing it elsewhere, but I'm sure I'm not the first. I don't often find myself having to address this criticism.

I was thinking that, like other aspects of the Atonement, surely it must have been foreshadowed and prophesied. I found this OT verse...

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
Isaiah 53:5

Delving deeper into Thayer's Lexicon, I see that the usages of bruised are all "crushed". Knowing that "Gethsemane" is "oil press," the symbolism pops into view. Jesus Christ was crushed under the weight of our sins in Gethsemane (oil press) such that he bled from every pore.

Feel free to critique this, whether or not you think it's a good way to support our doctrine. Perhaps this is also a different way to view the symbolism of olive oil.

you might find this enlightening

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/truman-g-madsen/olive-press/

[InCognitus]

23 minutes ago, BCSpace said:

about D&C 19:18, in which we read about the unique, or nearly unique, LDS doctrine that Jesus Christ suffered for sins in Gethsemane

I found it interesting that Adam Clarke in his commentary on Matthew 26:38 comes to the same doctrinal conclusion about Luke 22:43-44.  And even though he doesn't make the same connection that you do with Isaiah 53:5, he definitely describes Christ's experience in Gethsemane as an exquisite anguish that "forced the very blood through the coats of the veins", which in my mind supports the olive press imagery. 

He says this in his commentary on Matthew 26:38 instead of his commentary on Luke 22:44.  Here is the Adam Clarke Commentary on Matthew 26:38:

Quote

My soul is exceeding sorrowful, (or, is surrounded with exceeding sorrow), even unto death - This latter word explains the two former: My soul is so dissolved in sorrow, my spirit is filled with such agony and anguish, that, if speedy succor be not given to my body, death must be the speedy consequence.

Now, the grand expiatory sacrifice begins to be offered: in this garden Jesus enters fully into the sacerdotal office; and now, on the altar of his immaculate divinity, begins to offer his own body - his own life - a lamb without spot, for the sin of the world. St. Luke observes, Luk 22:43, Luk 22:44, that there appeared unto him an angel from heaven strengthening him; and that, being in an agony, his sweat was like great drops of blood falling to the ground. How exquisite must this anguish have been, when it forced the very blood through the coats of the veins, and enlarged the pores in such a preternatural manner as to cause them to empty it out in large successive drops! In my opinion, the principal part of the redemption price was paid in this unprecedented and indescribable agony.

Bloody sweats are mentioned by many authors; but none was ever such as this - where a person in perfect health, (having never had any predisposing sickness to induce a debility of the system), and in the full vigor of life, about thirty-three years of age, suddenly, through mental pressure, without any fear of death, sweat great drops of blood; and these continued, during his wrestling with God to fall to the ground.

To say that all this was occasioned by the fear he had of the ignominious death which he was about to die confutes itself - for this would not only rob him of his divinity, for which purpose it is brought, but it deprives him of all excellency, and even of manhood itself. The prospect of death could not cause him to suffer thus, when he knew that in less than three days he was to be restored to life, and be brought into an eternity of blessedness. His agony and distress can receive no consistent explication but on this ground - He Suffered, the Just for the Unjust, that he might Bring us to God. O glorious truth! O infinitely meritorious suffering! And O! above all, the eternal love, that caused him to undergo such sufferings for the sake of Sinners!

In the Adam Clark commentary on Luke 22:44, he refers back to his commentary on Matthew 26:38, but also elaborates a little on the possible medical reasons for that experience.

[BCSpace]

23 minutes ago, Duncan said:

you might find this enlightening

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/truman-g-madsen/olive-press/

I do. Thank you very much.

[Pyreaux]

From my study notes, many compiled from Margaret Barker:

Traditionally Christians have interpreted Isaiah’s Suffering Servant Song as the prophecy of Jesus Christ's suffering. Despite the uncanny parallels, scholarship has long held this to be a purely Christian innovation, because nowhere does Isaiah call his subject the anointed Messiah. However, only by the chance discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has this Christian interpretation finally been vindicated. The Dead Sea Scrolls contains a pre-Christian version of Isaiah, the Isaiah Scroll.

In that scroll, the Fourth Servant Song (Isaiah 52:14) is just one Hebrew letter different than the Masoretic text. The Bible usually translates the word into English as “marred [H#4893]” or “disfigured” but with the extra letter added the word becomes “[masahti (H#4888) anointed]”. We know that because that is the meaning of that word when it is used in Numbers 18:8, so the Isaiah Suffering Servant was originally a Messiah.  The Isaiah Scroll says "I have anointed him more than any man in his appearance and he shall sprinkle many nations” (1Q Isaiaha 52:14). The Targums indicate the subject was a Messiah in the previous verse, “My servant the Messiah shall prosper” (Targum, Isaiah 52:13).

.....

The Isaiah Servant, the Messiah, will suffer, become exalted, and will also perform an Atonement rite, as he says the Messiah shall “sprinkle [rhantise (H#5137)] many nations” (Isaiah 52:15) the same verb for the Atoning blood (Leviticus 16:19). The next chapter says the Servant will have “carried [yazzah (H#5445)]” our grieves and sorrows and upon him “laid” the “iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:6). He was “oppressed”, just as Christ was arrested, but "opened not his mouth” (Isaiah 53:7) just as Christ would not open his mouth to the High Priests or to Pilate (Mark 14:61; 15:3). The Servant shall be ‘taken from judgment… cut off from the land of the living, made his grave with the wicked and with the rich in his death” (Isaiah 53:8-9), just as Christ died amidst two criminals and was entombed in a rich man’s tomb (Luke 23:39, 50-53). 

The Servant was “wounded [hll (H#2490)]” (Isaiah 53:5), this word means to “‘pierce” (Isaiah 51:9), pierced for transgressions and the “chastisement [mwsr (H#4148)] for our peace” was upon him (Isaiah 53:5). Isaiah means the 'bonds (of the covenant) of peace', as it’s the same word in Ezekiel, “bonds of the covenant [msrt hbryt]” (Ezekiel 20:37; Jeremiah 2:20; Psalm 2:3). Which is also in parallel to the next verse, “with his stripes [hbrt (H#2250)] we are healed” (Isaiah 53:5). This is the same word for “stripes” is in Exodus and there it meant to “join” or “unite” the curtains of the tabernacle, as “[hbr’]’s” primary meaning is to unite (Exodus 26:4).

In Hebrew poetry, chiasmus, the literary style of the Bible, parallel chiasmus will put two different words with similar meanings together in a verse. Since the first part of the verse, one word means a type of bond, the other line also contains a word that also is a type of bond, though it also means a type of bruise caused by a bond, the results from wearing bonds. These “bonds” are references to the Everlasting Covenant. The Servant pours out his “soul [‘sm (H5315)] for a sin offering” (Isaiah 53:10), a “[sm’]” is something that redresses as “[m’l]”, which is a violation of the covenant. Christ, the Messiah is offering to repair the Covenant.

.....

Didn’t Isaiah’s Suffering Servant Song describe the Messiah’s suffering as “Surely He hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows…” (Isaiah 53:4-5; Matthew 8:17)? When exactly during the Crucifixion did Christ suffer “sorrows for sin” or “carry” the weight of our grief? During his Passion Christ expressed no complaint of his burdens, or express his pain, or utter any words of sorrow, He mostly kept his mouth shut (Isaiah 53:7; Mark 14:61; 15:3).

This is in contrast from when He was in Gethsemane, it was there He expresses how He was “sorrowful and very heavy” and “exceedingly sorrowful unto death”. Only there does the Bible say Christ was in “agony” (Luke 22:43-44). One could argue by these words about Jesus that Gethsemane might have been the scene of Christ’s greatest agony. We merely imagine that scourges and crucifixion must have hurt more than the act of simply praying in a garden, only He didn’t express His agony nor sweat blood during the crucifixion (Mark 14:61; 15:3).

Unlike the prayers we've given, appears that for Christ, maintaining His effort to pray in Gethsemane became increasingly difficult, as he keeps asking for the cup’s removal, and an angel had to be sent to Him in order to strengthen Him to keep praying, and He was in such “agony” that “his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling to the ground” (Luke 22:43-44).

....

The final rite of the first portion of the Atonement in the temple was to purge the holy place, the artificial garden temple, representing all creation, with blood, on the that sacred ground (Leviticus 16:15). As he purifies the sanctuary, the High Priest took upon himself the sins of the people who confessed to him, he became the sin bearer, at least until he has the chance to transfer them on head of the second goat. During that time, the High Priest, is like Christ who is to have borne the sorrows and sicknesses of His people (Isaiah 5:4, 10; Matthew 8:17). Interesting to note here that excess sacrificial blood from sacrifices was sold to gardeners to use as fertilizer in their gardens (Mishnah, Yoma 5:6).

....

The event at Gethsemane must be something important, for no other reason than that it is even mentioned in the Gospels at all. 

....

Denominations such as The Baptist Church figures that the scene of Gethsemane was about Christ expressing fear in anticipation of the pains of the cross. However, I think this is wrong, for Christ to be afraid to be persecuted and crucified is outside of the character He has ever displayed previously and shortly thereafter when it concerned the subject of suffering and death. To interpret this as fear of death would place Christ below the heroism of the Christian martyrs, like Paul, who anticipated harsh persecution and death, even crucifixion, for Christ’s sake with joy. The point of the scene is not a mere display of Christ’s humanity, weakness or fears of death.

Instead of Christ being fearful of death on the cross, I would here interject it was the custom for High Priest who approached God (such as during the Temple's atonement ritual) to do so with “fear and trembling” (Genesis 9:2; Psalm 55:6; Judith 2:28; 4 Maccabees 4:10; 1 Enoch 13:3; Narsai, Homilies 17A). When the High Priest preformed an Atonement ritual, the proper thing to do was to approach the Holy of Holies with the purposeful attitude of fear and trembling, thus showing reverence and respect. In an Atonement, it was then that the Atoning High Priest would then open his mouth, praying in devotion until He knows his prayer has been accepted.

The details about what the content of the Atonement Prayer is unknown, however what little we do know is the prayer was repeated three times as some kind of formula (Exodus 30:10; Leviticus 8:15; 16:18; 17:18). It is with much interest that here, alone on a holy mountain, that Christ trembles and opens his mouth to pray, and does so three times as a formula, “O my father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: never the less not as I will, but as thou will.” (Matthew 26:39-44). If Christ was cowering over the suffering of the crucifixion, why did Christ not fear or tremble, cower or even open his mouth to respond during the Passion of Christ, but He was brave, calm and was lead as a lamb to the slaughter (Isaiah 53:7; Mark 14:61; 15:31). 

....

Since the purpose of Atonement in the past wasn’t just about forgiving sins but to purify and cleanse the holy ground of the Temple (Leviticus 16:9). If Christ’s Atonement is a final Day of Atonement Ritual, a temple is the proper venue for a temple rite. The Temple of Herod in Jerusalem was under the control of the Sanhedrin. Christians as a new upstart sect in Judaism, claiming to possess an extinct priesthood, did not have the clout to have free reign of that temple. 

However, a Temple quintessentially is an artificially constructed mountain with an artificial golden tree grove at its summit. In the past, before the temple was built, the Patriarchs built up many other more literally mountainous and arboreal types of temples, utilizing the more natural and rural features of the areas rather than creating artificial ones. They built an alter and pitched a tabernacle tent on top of actual mountains with an actual grove of trees in their midst (Bethel – Genesis 28:19; 35:8, and Sinai – Exodus 15:7; 3:2, etc). The Garden of Eden was a holy grove of olive trees (Zechariah 4:3).

During the day light hours, Christ utilized the Temple of Jerusalem and could be found teaching the masses outside the Temple, while during the night, Christ taught only to his disciples on a mountain called the “Mount of Olives” (Luke 21:37-38) as was his “wont” or custom (Luke 22:39). While on the Mount of Olive’s western slope was an ancient grove of olive trees, the “garden of Gethsemane [(G#1068) Oil Press]” (Matthew 26:36). The olives that grew there were pressed under gigantic stones to extract its oils. Poetic as it was here that Christ would say that He had felt a “heavy” weight upon him (Matthew 26:17) and “blood” would be extracted from him. 

This Mount was always a holy and distinguished mountain, it is where King David himself worshiped (2 Samuel 15:30, 32). When the Temple of Jerusalem was razed to the ground by Babylon, Ezekiel had a vision during the Babylonian captivity in which, “the glory of the Lord” vacated the Temple mount and came to rest of the Mount of Olives (Ezekiel 11:22-23). In the future, the Messiah was prophesied to appear there to save his people, God will send the nations to Jerusalem, the Lord will stand on the Mount of Olives (Zacharias 14:3-5). After the Resurrection, this is this same mount that Christ ascended into a “cloud” and angels were frequently seen there (Acts 1:9-12; Luke 22:43). 

....

For the next 700 years, the Christians that lived there called the Mount of Olives, “the sanctuary of the Lord, that is, the Temple” which is to be built in the future. Thus, Emperor Constantine’s mother built a “sacred church and temple on the very summit”. On the Mountain of Olives was also a cave, “authentic history informs us that this very cave the savior imparted secret revelations to his disciples” (Philip Schaft, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Eusebias [1994], pg 531). 

The narrative tells us that the Garden of Gethsemane even had a Temple-like Tripartite division, three main areas, just like a temple has. On the Day of Atonement, the Israelites stood outside the building in the Temple Courtyard, Priests were allowed to enter the Holy Place, and the High Priest was to go into the Holy of Holies alone (Leviticus 16:17).

At other rural Temple-like sites like Mount Sinai, Moses, who was a non-Aaronic priest (Psalm 99:1) was attempting to renew the original covenant (before Israel sinned) and blood atoned there (Exodus 24:8). For this they triple partitioned Mount Sinai as a Temple, the Israelites stayed at the Bottom of the Mount, Aaron and the Seventy were able to go Midway Up, and Moses as a High Priest had to go to the Top alone (Exodus 19:17).

Similarly, in Gethsemane on the Mount of Olives, the Disciples gathered in a main area of the garden where Christ instructs them to stay there (Matthew 26:36), only taking the Triumvirate, the three Chief Apostles; Peter, James and John, as the Priests, with Him into an Interior area of the Garden, that is until He asks them to wait there (Matthew 26:37), while Christ “went a little further” to be alone into a third Innermost area (Matthew 26:39). Being alone in a Holy Mountain Grove, Christ was in a position to act as a High Priest in an atonement ritual for a new covenant with his own blood and it was mentioned that there Jesus did appear to bleed (Luke 22:44). While Christ also bled on Calvary’s Hill, He was not alone on Calvary’s Hill as a High Priests should be, there were two crucified with him (Matthew 29:38).

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

We merely imagine that scourges and crucifixion must have hurt more than the act of simply praying in a garden, only He didn’t express His agony nor sweat blood during the crucifixion (Mark 14:61; 15:3).

There was a good reason not to given he was in front of people during that time that were likely getting satisfaction, if not delight, from any sign he was suffering as well as being in front of his followers and loved ones who were suffering as he suffered, hating he was experiencing pain (choosing a excruciatingly painful death wouldn’t be as useful as a scare tactic or punishment if not seen by others).  It was likely both an act of defiance, showing he was still in control and an act of love, trying to protect those who cared for him from being destroyed by seeing his extreme pain.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Denominations such as The Baptist Church figures that the scene of Gethsemane was about Christ expressing fear in anticipation of the pains of the cross.

CFR please. I have found Saints have misunderstood other faiths’ beliefs enough, I like to see documentation (preferably from the actual faith’s official website or other reference, but at least actual educated in the faith members).  Not assuming you have got it wrong, it just is a standard I use if I am not familiar with a faith’s alleged principle.

Interesting post, btw. Had heard of Gethsemane as oil press and Christ’s act interpreted through that before, but your details are a good addition.  There were several things that caught my attention, one possible aha moment…have to think about it more.

Edited February 25 by Calm

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

CFR please. I have found Saints have misunderstood other faiths’ beliefs enough, I like to see documentation (preferably from the actual faith’s official website or other reference, but at least actual educated in the faith members).  Not assuming you have got it wrong, it just is a standard I use if I am not familiar with a faith’s alleged principle.

Interesting post, btw. Had heard of Gethsemane as oil press and Christ’s act interpreted through that before, but your details are a good addition.  There were several things that caught my attention, one possible aha moment…have to think about it more.

You'll find for many Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox traditions, Gethsemane is considered one of the primary "prooftexts" for the Hypostatic Union. This is the doctrine that Jesus had both a divine will and a human will. Baptist theology often emphasizes the Substitutionary Atonement, that Jesus stood in our place. For this to work legally and spiritually, he had to be truly human. Baptists argue that if Jesus didn't feel fear, his "courage" on the cross wouldn't be courage, it would just be divine inevitability.

Charles Spurgeon, perhaps the most famous Baptist preacher in history, spoke extensively on this in his sermon "The Agony in Gethsemane." He argued that Gethsemane proves Christ’s humanity because He possessed a "rational soul" that naturally shrunk from pain and death.

https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/the-agony-in-gethsemane/#flipbook

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

However, I think this is wrong, for Christ to be afraid to be persecuted and crucified is outside of the character He has ever displayed previously and shortly thereafter when it concerned the subject of suffering and death.

Been thinking about this as well as the reasoning given for other faiths to see him as experiencing fear. 

If Christ is fully human as we believe and he was truly mortal in his mortality, he would also be programmed with the same biological instincts that the rest of us have.  It seems appropriate to me for him to experience life at the level we do biologically speaking (meaning feeling pleasure at the taste of good food and displeasure with bad, feeling too hot or too cold, allowing himself to get ill, get injured, stunned, maybe even startled and embarrassed and anxious, etc) even if he had such control and self awareness so that he understood the results of his behaviour well enough that he could choose not to sin and not to let the experience of such negative emotions and physical states get in the way of what he needed to do.

 If so, then given he was probably even more aware of the pain and suffering to come, it makes sense to me he would at least instinctively fear such even if he knew he could balance that experience of primal fear of extreme pain with self control way beyond our own abilities.

So from that position I see it as reasonable to both believe he felt fear for what was to come (if not death, then the manner of dying) and to believe he would continue to approach that fear with self awareness and calmness.  Humans can after all hold contradictory emotions in our heads at the same time…at least while we are mortal.  I can love the experience of school because of the opportunities to indulge my curiosity, for example, to the point I saw my career choice as “perpetual student” whatever else I ended up doing while still in the moment hating the discomfort of school because of the annoying lights and sounds, having to stay stationary on hard surfaces, not being able to talk when I wanted, having to talk when I didn’t want to, etc.

Given Christ’s situation involved even more extremes…he knew it was necessary so that all humanity could be redeemed if they so desired and return to live with God, but he would also know such pain would reduce most to the levels of animals, it would so overwhelm their senses and ability to think.

Another possibility of why he might have experienced fear…

While we believe that perfect love casts out fear and I have no doubt that if Christ lacked perfect knowledge at that time of the result of his actions, he had perfect love, he also was taking on himself our sins. I have interpreted that and I believe many others do as well that meant he was experiencing all of our weaknesses as if they were his own. How else could he truly understand who we are and what we feel in order to redeem us, to reach us in ways that can fundamentally change who we are (with our desire to be changed by him) unless in some fashion he experienced the same thing…at least as a mortal if he lacked at that point the ability to know our hearts and minds to the extent that the Father does.  

If it was true he was experiencing our fears as if they were his own, it would not be out of his character, but still be understandable if he shrank from the cup, feared abandonment, and more…because in that moment he was not only himself, but also us.

[MustardSeed]

If he wasn’t frightened, it wouldn’t be much of a sacrifice

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

If he wasn’t frightened, it wouldn’t be much of a sacrifice

I don't disagree. What I disagree with is the agony of Gethsemane was somehow very specifically the definitive expression of a fear of the cross. They don't know that. They just see no other purpose for the account. If He were showing cowardice, it's a bit below the confidence of other sacrificed heroes, like Issac or Selia.

Seila said "who is there who would be sad in death, seeing the people free?" (Ps-Philo 40:2; Josephus, Ant 5:7:10 [265]). "Do you not remember what happened in the days of our fathers when the fathers placed the son as a holocaust, and he did not refuse him but gladly gave consent to him, and the one being offered was ready and the one who was offering was rejoicing?" (Ps-Philo 40:2). "I am not sad because I am to die nor does it pain me to give back my soul. If I did not offer myself willingly... my death would not be acceptable" (Ps-Philo 40:3).

Edited February 25 by Pyreaux

[telnetd]

13 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

This is in contrast from when He was in Gethsemane, it was there He expresses how He was “sorrowful and very heavy” and “exceedingly sorrowful unto death”.

The JST version of Mark 14 adds some detail to the last supper and Gethsemane events.

"Verily I say unto you, Of this ye shall bear record; for I will no more drink of the fruit of
the vine with you, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God. And now they
were grieved, and wept over him".

The disciples do not weep over Christ in the Bible during the meal.

The scene then changes to Gethsemane.

"And they came to a place which was named Gethsemane, which was a garden; and the 
disciples began to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy, and to complain in their 
hearts, wondering if this be the Messiah".

Jesus was the one who began to be sore amazed, not the disciples (Mark 14:33 in 
the KJV). The disciples do not doubt that Jesus is the Messiah in the biblical account.

Later, only 3 disciples are rebuked.

"And he taketh with him, Peter, and James, and John, and rebuked them, and said unto 
them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death; tarry ye here and watch".

Other parts of the JST mention a few other details.

"And he cometh and findeth them sleeping, and said unto Peter, Simon, sleepest thou? 
Couldest not thou watch one hour? Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation. 
And they said unto him, The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak. And again he
went away and prayed, and spake the same words. And when he returned, he found
them asleep again, for their eyes were heavy; neither knew they what to answer him".

In the biblical record it is Jesus who says "the spirit indeed is willing/ready, but 
the flesh is weak", not the 3 disciples (Matthew 26:41, Mark 14:38).

[Pyreaux]

9 hours ago, telnetd said:

The JST version of Mark 14 adds some detail to the last supper and Gethsemane events.

"Verily I say unto you, Of this ye shall bear record; for I will no more drink of the fruit of
the vine with you, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God. And now they
were grieved, and wept over him".

The disciples do not weep over Christ in the Bible during the meal.

The scene then changes to Gethsemane.

"And they came to a place which was named Gethsemane, which was a garden; and the 
disciples began to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy, and to complain in their 
hearts, wondering if this be the Messiah".

Jesus was the one who began to be sore amazed, not the disciples (Mark 14:33 in 
the KJV). The disciples do not doubt that Jesus is the Messiah in the biblical account.

Later, only 3 disciples are rebuked.

"And he taketh with him, Peter, and James, and John, and rebuked them, and said unto 
them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death; tarry ye here and watch".

Other parts of the JST mention a few other details.

"And he cometh and findeth them sleeping, and said unto Peter, Simon, sleepest thou? 
Couldest not thou watch one hour? Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation. 
And they said unto him, The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak. And again he
went away and prayed, and spake the same words. And when he returned, he found
them asleep again, for their eyes were heavy; neither knew they what to answer him".

In the biblical record it is Jesus who says "the spirit indeed is willing/ready, but 
the flesh is weak", not the 3 disciples (Matthew 26:41, Mark 14:38).

Good catch, if the JST disciples are the ones "sore amazed," then Jesus appears more stoic, which moves even farther away from what the Baptists hold to. The JST changes paint a picture of a more composed Jesus, by shifting the complaining and doubting to the disciples, it emphasizes that Jesus was the only one who truly understood the mission, while the disciples were faltering in their faith, falling asleep.

For Joseph Smith, these revealed changes might have been "justified", particularly if we assume he's a prophet. Mark 14:33 doesn’t provide an explicit, labeled reason for Jesus' amazement. Like this idea that he was fearing death. Many martyrs went to their deaths singing hymns, like Polycarp and Peter. Was Jesus, the model of martyrs, "amazed" and "heavy" just because of a cross? If so, it would almost make him look less brave than his followers that were also crucified.

Edited February 26 by Pyreaux

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Was Jesus, the model of martyrs, "amazed" and "heavy" just because of a cross?

Or amazed and heavy with sorrow knowing what his children he loved were about to do to him…

[bluebell]

21 hours ago, BCSpace said:

I was researching to counter a post from some non-LDS Christians about D&C 19:18, in which we read about the unique, or nearly unique, LDS doctrine that Jesus Christ suffered for sins in Gethsemane, and I found this. I don't recall seeing it elsewhere, but I'm sure I'm not the first. I don't often find myself having to address this criticism.

I was thinking that, like other aspects of the Atonement, surely it must have been foreshadowed and prophesied. I found this OT verse...

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
Isaiah 53:5

Delving deeper into Thayer's Lexicon, I see that the usages of bruised are all "crushed". Knowing that "Gethsemane" is "oil press," the symbolism pops into view. Jesus Christ was crushed under the weight of our sins in Gethsemane (oil press) such that he bled from every pore.

Feel free to critique this, whether or not you think it's a good way to support our doctrine. Perhaps this is also a different way to view the symbolism of olive oil.

There is also the possibility that this verse in Isaiah isn't only speaking about what happened in Gethsemane.  The stripes he is speaking of happened before the crucifixion, for example.  Perhaps the 'bruising' term is referring to wounds that happened throughout the process and not specifically in the garden.

It could also be a symbolic reference to Jesus being crushed by the weight of the sins of the world.

(I haven't read any other posts so I apologize if this has already been brought up)

[Tony uk]

The onset of bruising of bruising, and the stripes. This process may have begun with the events in Gethsemane, through the events of interrogation at the hands of various people and eventually the crucifixion. 

 Also, as mentioned previously by Bluebell. Symbolically, the wounds could be inflicted by Jesus taking on the sins of the world.

[BCSpace]

On 2/25/2026 at 5:51 PM, bluebell said:

There is also the possibility that this verse in Isaiah isn't only speaking about what happened in Gethsemane.

Sure. I see it as...

Wounded (pierced as per the usage) = the spear thrust on the cross.
Bruised (crushed by the oil press) = Gethsemane.
Stripes = The various beatings and whippings he received.

[manol]

On 2/25/2026 at 3:52 AM, Calm said:

... in that moment he was not only himself, but also us.

^^^This^^^

And maybe not only in that moment.  Maybe "I am the vine and you are the branches" is the reality, even if that reality is well beyond our current perception. 

Edit:  I suggest watching the first one minute and two seconds of this NDE compilation video, with captioning if needed.  It just posted today, and I haven't watched the rest of it yet, but the first one minute and two seconds jumped out at me in the context of that bit I quoted from @Calm's post.  Imo this falls under the category of "all that God does now reveal":

 

 

Edited February 28 by manol

[Pyreaux]

More notes

On 2/25/2026 at 6:51 PM, bluebell said:

There is also the possibility that this verse in Isaiah isn't only speaking about what happened in Gethsemane.  The stripes he is speaking of happened before the crucifixion, for example.  Perhaps the 'bruising' term is referring to wounds that happened throughout the process and not specifically in the garden.

It could also be a symbolic reference to Jesus being crushed by the weight of the sins of the world.

(I haven't read any other posts so I apologize if this has already been brought up)

The Two Goats 

If the Atonement of Jesus Christ has anything to do with the Atonement rites of the Day of Atonement, the original rite had at least two parts, represented by two goats. One goat makes an atonement with is blood, the second goat is cast out of the city, ideally lead by the hand of a foreigner, in hopes it will die, eaten by a lion, away from Jerusalem and not wonder back with their sins. Sometimes it would come back, and so the Jews later resolved to push it backwards off a cliff.

“On Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) a goat was thrown off a high cliff in the desert, to atone for the sins of the Jews. A red ribbon was hung up in the Temple on that day. When the goat was thrown off the cliff, the ribbon turned white.” (B. Yoma 67a) This description links the Temple with the exile of the scapegoat. Viewing it as a kind of remote Temple offering as signified by the transformation of the ribbon from red to white.

The First Century Christian document, the Epistle of Barnabas, is attributed to the Biblical Barnabas the Levite, one of the Seven Assistants to the Apostles, and Paul’s Missionary Companion (Acts 4:36; 13:2). It was lost and then rediscovered in 1859 in the Sinai Codex. Now whether or not it was written by the Biblical Barnabas or another Barnabas, it is definitely a document from the apostolic era, with valuable insight. Barnabas has many quotes from Old Testament era texts we don’t have.

Concerning the treatment of the scapegoat, “Spit on it, all of you, thrust your goads into it, wreath its head with scarlet wool and lead it be driven into the desert,” “when they see him coming on the Day, they are going to be struck with terror at the manifest parallel between him and the goat,”  “they shall see him on that Day, clad to the ankles in his red woolen robe and will say, ‘is this not he whom we once crucified and mocked and pierced and spat upon?” (Epistle of Barnabas 7). 

Now, Isaiah had a similar vision of the Lord, on the Day (of Vengeance), come in a red robe and when he asked the Lord why he is red, He replies his robes are bloodstained red from when he had troddened the winefat “alone, and of the people, there were none with me” (Isaiah 63:2). Jesus Christ in the Second Coming has a bloodstained red venture (Revelations 19:13). Isaiah’s quote seems to describe Christ had stained his robes while alone in Gethsemane (Luke 22:44). Christ was not alone at Golgotha (Luke 23:39). Christ did customarily wear his High Priest’s expensive, seamless and brilliantly white robe before he went to Gethsemane. Christ was not wearing his robe when he was crucified, the Roman Soldiers took it from him (John 19:23-24; Psalm 22:18).

Barnabas makes a unique claim that is contrary to Leviticus, he says that the first goat, the sin offering goat, in the Day of Atonement ritual was originally eaten. The people ate the carcass, and the Priests ate the fat and bloody sacrificial portions, unwashed, in vinegar (sour wine). Barnabas quotes from an unknown quote from Jesus Christ who is quoting an unknown Book of the Prophets (an Old Testament scripture), “What does it say in the prophet? ‘Let all the priests but nobody else eat of its inward parts, unwashed and with vinegar.’ Why was this? Because, ‘When I am about to give my body for sins of this new people of mine, you will give me gall and vinegar to drink’” (Epistle of Barnabas 7). The New Testament authors were careful to note that Christ was given “vinegar to drink mingled with gall” (Matthew 27:34, 48; Psalm 69:23), though they don’t explain the significance of this.

Leviticus, seems to contradict Barnabas’s quote, saying in the Atonement, the High Priest did remove the fat and enthralls, kidneys and liver, but claims they were burned on the alter with the priests while the carcass was burned with the people outside, and does not say it was eaten (Leviticus 4:8-10). If it was eaten unwashed, Leviticus also says the consumption of blood is forbidden (Leviticus 3:17), as Jews of the first century say in the Mishnah (m. Yoma 6:7). Though the Mishnah doesn’t represent the views of all First Century Jews, the also Mishnah mentions there were Jews they refer to as “Babylonians” (presumed to be a derogatory term for other Jews, perhaps the Alexandrian Jews), who performed the Jewish Day of Atonement rites and did eat the sin offering, and if it was the Sabbath, they ate it raw, because they couldn’t cook (m. Menahoth 11:7). What is interesting about this is, if Barnabas is correct, and the sin offering was eaten unwashed, raw, and in vinegar/sour wine, then there was definitely blood consumption/drinking in the Temple by priests on the Day of Atonement.

What Barnabas is implying is that by having Christ drink vinegar with gall mingled in it on the cross, which some think it as cruel mockery, or another act of mercy (an attempt at pain reliever or for hastening death). There were some First Century Christians, like Barnabus that saw this event as being foreshadowed by the Day of Atonement ritual. It gives Christ’s Sacramental cup more context. As the Sacramental bread and wine is believed to be the foretold new Temple bread and libations reestablished (Malachi 1:7, 11) Christ insisted that the contents of his cup of fruit of the vine was his blood, even though Leviticus forbids blood drinking (Leviticus 3:17). Blood drinking while not Kosher, may have been Kosher for priests during Atonement Day practice.

Just how other Temple practices and objects were forbidden outside the Temple, like using the formula for temple incense, or the temple anointing oil, or possessing a seven branched lamp stand in a private house was forbidden for general use, but not for the Temple. It's possible that Leviticus maybe, as some think, an edited late document. Or it's merely intended to be the rules of Israelites, but not royal Melchizedek priests, and later self-imposed by Jews. Some scholars think this version of the Atonement practice eating of the sacrificial goat's inward portions in wine is valid and would explain the origin of the Christian traditions to remove the inner portions of the sacramental loaf (the inward parts of the Body of Christ) and mingle it with the sacramental wine (the Blood of Christ) of the Eucharist (M. Barker, The Great High Priest, pg70).

One might question the authenticity of Barnabas’s unbiblical sources, merely because it is an unbiblical source. Though one of Barnabas' unbiblical sources ended up being discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Book of Enoch. Barnabas quotes, “It will come to pass in this last days that the Lord will deliver up destruction, the sheep of the pasture, with their sheepfold and their watchtower [1 Enoch 89:56]” (Epistle of Barnabas 16). As a side note, the watch tower is the temple (Isaiah 5; Assumption of Moses 2:4; Shepherd of Hermas, Parables 3:2:4; 9:3:1; 9:7:1). The Book of Enoch is the most quoted book in the New Testament and has a lot to add to the meaning of Christ's Atonement.

....

Proxies and Scapegoats

There is no Biblical explanation of the theology behind the rituals of atonement. We do know under normal conditions, covenants made with blood oaths must mean the offended party must demand the blood of the oath breaker, the sinner. Fortunately for the many that have sinned against a merciful party, such as God, there arose a need to innovate a ritual system as the Atonement, so that just one person, the High Priest, could stand as proxy for the covenant people, the sinners, in the atonement ritual. The consequences of not atoning for sins when the Covenant broke meant that the earth went from created order to original chaos and the people suffered. A priest must atone with animal blood as the proxy for the sinners, or else the blood of the sinners themselves, human blood, was apparently accepted for the Covenant to be satisfied (Numbers 25:7-13).

The priest hears the confessions of the people, he bears them as he takes the place of the people to offer up his own blood in their stead. Fortunately for the Priest, the ritual also accepted a goat as a proxy for the blood the priest is supposed to pay himself. This appears to be done by making a goat another proxy for himself, a priest, and then using its blood. We see details of an ordinance that seems to signify the transference of the priesthood from the Priest to the goat by the laying on of hands upon to the goat's head, and the goat is even given a priest's crown with the name of Lord upon it. The meaning behind such a crown is that the goat, like the Priest, is to stand as a proxy for the Lord God of Israel Himself when the goat atones for the sins of all the people of Israel with His own blood. Sounds like a type and shadow of the Christ.

Again, blood was believed to be “life” of a creature (Leviticus 17:14), so this is an important distinction, a sin offering was not completed upon the death of the goat, but by a priest's offering of that goat's “blood” in a holy place (Leviticus 17:11). If a Priest had only sacrificed the goat and drained its blood, but then failed to deliver that blood to the temple, and by his hand sprinkle it there, nothing was achieved by the animal’s death. The smearing blood at the temple is what was important, or else the temple which represents the microcosm of all Creation, was not renewed and purified. Once the blood is sprinkled about the temple, and thus all Creation, it is then purified, and the High Priest absorbs and bears the sins of the people that has tainted all creation (Leviticus 10:17).

Once the sins were all collected, he’d bore them and then confessed the sins of the people over the head of a second goat (as the previous one was dead), and thus he transfers the people's sin he absorbed on the head of that second goat, The goat referred to in King James English as the “scapegoat”. But the two goats were supposed to be identical (m. Yoma 6:1) that is supposedly because they were ritually the same goat. Two proxies for what was to be accomplished by one person who was to stand as a proxy for all. The scapegoat is lead from the Temple of Jerusalem to the Mount of Olives, then on a marked path out of the city, preferably by the hands of a gentile (Leviticus 16:21; m. Yoma 6:8).

Edited February 27 by Pyreaux

[telnetd]

20 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

The First Century Christian document, the Epistle of Barnabas, is attributed to the Biblical Barnabas the Levite

The Gospel of Barnabas teaches a version of Jesus' life that aligns with Islamic beliefs, 
portraying Jesus as a prophet, not divine, denying his crucifixion (claiming Judas was 
crucified in his place), rejecting the Trinity, and prophesying the coming of Muhammad 
by name. It also claims Ishmael, not Isaac, was the son offered by Abraham, supporting 
Islamic tradition over biblical accounts. 

Wikipedia shows other heretical teachings.  The so-called gospel is downloadable here.

[telnetd]

On 2/25/2026 at 1:55 PM, Pyreaux said:

Was Jesus, the model of martyrs, "amazed" and "heavy" just because of a cross? If so, it would almost make him look less brave than his followers that were also crucified.

The NKJV and ESV word it a little differently.

"And He took Peter, James, and John with Him, and He began to be troubled and deeply 
distressed".

This talks about Gethsemane, not the cross.  The disciples would never suffer as Christ
did.

[Pyreaux]

4 hours ago, telnetd said:

The Gospel of Barnabas teaches a version of Jesus' life that aligns with Islamic beliefs, 
portraying Jesus as a prophet, not divine, denying his crucifixion (claiming Judas was 
crucified in his place), rejecting the Trinity, and prophesying the coming of Muhammad 
by name. It also claims Ishmael, not Isaac, was the son offered by Abraham, supporting 
Islamic tradition over biblical accounts. 

Wikipedia shows other heretical teachings.  The so-called gospel is downloadable here.

The Epistle of Barnabas and the Gospel of Barnabas have almost nothing in common besides the name. The Epistle of Barnabas was in roughly 70–132 AD. It was highly respected by the early Church (found in the Codex Sinaiticus). It is pro-Jesus as Divine. 

The Gospel of Barnabas dates to the 14th–16th century AD. It is Islamic in nature.

4 hours ago, telnetd said:

The NKJV and ESV word it a little differently.

"And He took Peter, James, and John with Him, and He began to be troubled and deeply 
distressed".

This talks about Gethsemane, not the cross.  The disciples would never suffer as Christ
did.

But is the agony of Gethsemane a fear of suffering and death on a cross, or is the agony of Gethsemane itself a part of the suffering? Many of the other Christians were crucified too if not worse. Christ was speared in the side by one Roman soldier before they had time to break his legs. For this act the Roman soldier Longinus was declared a Saint by the Roman Catholic Church, as this was an act of mercy, preventing Christ from suffering even more.

Isaiah depicts suffering no whip or cross can deliver. No Roman torture can make a man feel all sorrow, sicknesses and sin of all people, or transfer the guilt for abominations of his people on himself, or produce an agony so great that he bled from every pour.

Edited February 28 by Pyreaux

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

The NKJV and ESV word it a little differently.

"And He took Peter, James, and John with Him, and He began to be troubled and deeply 
distressed".

This talks about Gethsemane, not the cross.  The disciples would never suffer as Christ
did.

For your consideration, a fly in the ointment…

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;

18 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—

19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men. (Doctrine and Covenant 19)

[mbh26]

On 2/24/2026 at 9:58 PM, BCSpace said:

I was researching to counter a post from some non-LDS Christians about D&C 19:18, in which we read about the unique, or nearly unique, LDS doctrine that Jesus Christ suffered for sins in Gethsemane, and I found this. I don't recall seeing it elsewhere, but I'm sure I'm not the first. I don't often find myself having to address this criticism.

I was thinking that, like other aspects of the Atonement, surely it must have been foreshadowed and prophesied. I found this OT verse...

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
Isaiah 53:5

Delving deeper into Thayer's Lexicon, I see that the usages of bruised are all "crushed". Knowing that "Gethsemane" is "oil press," the symbolism pops into view. Jesus Christ was crushed under the weight of our sins in Gethsemane (oil press) such that he bled from every pore.

Feel free to critique this, whether or not you think it's a good way to support our doctrine. Perhaps this is also a different way to view the symbolism of olive oil.

It sounds exactly right to me.  I'm not sure I could ever understand infinity.  Even Moses beholding every soul with God's help seems impossible to me, let alone suffering for a seemingly infinite number of sins in a finite amount of time.   

[telnetd]

On 2/28/2026 at 2:30 PM, teddyaware said:

For your consideration, a fly in the ointment…

 

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;

18 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—

19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men. (Doctrine and Covenant 19)

So you're saying they would bleed in the spirit world.