Christ in Gethsemane

[Kenngo1969]

My father, who is not in the best of health, just requested that I give him a reading assignment about Christ in Gethsemane.  The three accounts in the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are as follows:

Matthew 26:36-56 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/matt/26?lang=eng&id=36-56#p36

Mark 14:32-50 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/mark/14?lang=eng&id=32-50#p32

Luke 22:39-53 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/luke/22?lang=eng&id=39-53#p39

What strikes you about these accounts?

What do you find significant?

What insights do you gain from reading these accounts?

Thanks in advance!  

 

[let’s roll]

53 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

What strikes you about these accounts?

What do you find significant?

What insights do you gain from reading these accounts?

A few thoughts.  
1. None of the authors of the Gospels witnessed the scene in the garden.  The accounts of Matthew and Mark are very similar, which may mean their source (Peter, James, or John) was probably the same.  Luke’s account which includes the angelic visit and the description of agony, may have been from a different witness.

2. To better understand the accounts of Gethsemane in the Gospels, the account Jesus revealed to Joseph Smith, recorded in D&C 19 provides insight into His mindset during the Atonement.

3.  As was the case with the apostles with respect to many events during their walk with the mortal Christ, the depth and significance of Gethsemane wasn’t understood contemporaneously.  Nevertheless, what the authors of the Gospels were inspired to record is deep, layered, and poignant and, I believe, designed as an invitation for the reader to seek communion with Deity regarding the atonement, both to express gratitude for the sacrifice that made the atonement possible and to feel of its power…that unmistakable feeling being the best evidence of its reality.

[Pyreaux]

Atonement Ritual of Jesus

A priest must atone with 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). A 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.

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 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 “scapegoat”. 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).

Jesus Christ Sets the Stage for an Atonement Ritual 

Jesus Christ’s Atonement wasn't just a mere thematic Atonement, but a true Atonement rite. For example, there was a legal officiating High Priest performing the atonement rite. The Melchizedek Priesthood was a legit type of priesthood far more ancient than the Priests of Levi (Hebrews 7:6-10, 14, 27-28). 

As a High Priest, Christ is said to have made the final sacrifice, having made an actual atonement with his own blood (Hebrews 13:12). 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), a temple is the proper venue for a temple rite. The Temple was likely inaccessible, but in the past, before the temple was built, the Patriarchs built up many other more sacred mountainous and arboreal types of temples. 

During the nights, Christ taught only his disciples on a mountain called the “Mount of Olives” (Luke 21:37-38) as was his “wont” or custom (Luke 22:39). On the western slope was an ancient grove of olive trees, the “garden of Gethsemane [(G#1068) Oil Press]” (Matthew 26:36) where Christ would say that He had felt a “heavy” weight upon him (Matthew 26:17).

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). 

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). 

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 bleed (Luke 22:44). While Christ also bled on Calvary’s Hill, it was not in accord with an atonement rite He was not alone on Calvary’s Hill as a High Priest should be, there were two crucified with him (Matthew 29:38).

An Atoning High Priest Must Approach God with Fear and Trembling

It was nighttime, like on the Day of atonement. They traversed from the building with the Upper Room to Gethsemane, 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: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou will.” (Matthew 26:39-44).

If Christ was here cowering over the suffering of the crucifixion, why wasn't Christ afraid or trembling, cowering 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)?

How was Christ supposed to Suffer for Sin in the Atonement?

There is enough material by Christian scholars to indicate that the exact mechanics of Christ’s Atonement is guesswork. They try their best to describe all of the indignity, suffering, scourging, sometimes with no transcendent meaning but merely depicting it as horrifically as they can to conjure the most amount of empathy, even if that didn't quite happen that way.
 
Not to diminish crucifixion, it was horrible, but to single out Christ’s Crucifixion alone as the height of human suffering, the text does not exactly say that. Many of the other Christians were crucified also. In fact, some of the acts of the Roman soldiers did to Christ could actually be interpreted as acts of mercy. If a Roman soldier must execute someone by crucifixion, it was often preceded by scourging to hasten his death, and so prevents prolonged suffering. Christ was even 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.

Didn’t Isaiah’s Suffering Servant Song describe the 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”. Also, 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).

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). 

Was his sweat really blood? It wasn't simply called “blood”, but the Greek does indicate it at least appeared to be blood. That is an odd comparison to make. What characteristics does sweat need to have in order to resemble blood, without actually being blood?

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).

Edited October 13, 2024 by Pyreaux

[GoCeltics]

On 10/11/2024 at 11:37 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

What do you find significant?

I read this article:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/inspiration/modern-revelation-helps-us-understand-the-gospel-better-than-ever-before?lang=eng

Question 1: In the Garden of Gethsemane, did Jesus really bleed from every pore?

• In the Bible, Luke said that the Lord’s “sweat was as it were great drops of blood” (Luke 22:44). The phrase in the middle—“as it were”—has been interpreted by some to say that the blood was not literal, but figurative.
• But in the Book of Mormon, King Benjamin states it literally: “For behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish” (Mosiah 3:7). So did Jesus bleed figuratively or literally?
• Doctrine and Covenants 19:18 also confirms it. Jesus says His suffering made Him “bleed at every pore.” No metaphors. He really did sweat blood.

That passage reads:

“And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground”.

Would the meaning change if it read

“And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his blood was as it were great drops of sweat falling down to the ground”?

[Kenngo1969]

@GoCeltics 

Thx.

-Ken

[Kevin Christensen]

Try Truman Madsen, "The Olive Press".  

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

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[InCognitus]

On 10/14/2024 at 8:52 AM, GoCeltics said:

I read this article:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/inspiration/modern-revelation-helps-us-understand-the-gospel-better-than-ever-before?lang=eng

Question 1: In the Garden of Gethsemane, did Jesus really bleed from every pore?

• In the Bible, Luke said that the Lord’s “sweat was as it were great drops of blood” (Luke 22:44). The phrase in the middle—“as it were”—has been interpreted by some to say that the blood was not literal, but figurative.
• But in the Book of Mormon, King Benjamin states it literally: “For behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish” (Mosiah 3:7). So did Jesus bleed figuratively or literally?
• Doctrine and Covenants 19:18 also confirms it. Jesus says His suffering made Him “bleed at every pore.” No metaphors. He really did sweat blood.

That passage reads:

“And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground”.

Would the meaning change if it read

“And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his blood was as it were great drops of sweat falling down to the ground”?

Or it means both sweat and blood, exactly as it says.  It's not an either/or situation, and doesn't matter which order you put it in.  It's a known condition called Hematidrosis, which "is a condition in which capillary blood vessels that feed the sweat glands rupture, causing them to exude blood, occurring under conditions of extreme physical or emotional stress."  Also, "Hematidrosis can look like blood, bloody sweat, or sweat with droplets of blood in it." 

So it makes no difference how you say it.  And either way, the result is the same:  Agony in Gethsemane, where the atonement for our sins began.

And I know your website makes a big deal about saying "Jesus was sweating and not bleeding at Gethsemane".  But the fact remains, the scripture says "His sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground" (NKJV).  Why would the gospel writer say that sweat was like blood falling?  Why mention blood at all if it was merely sweat as you say?  But the conditions of stress described in the medical articles linked above explain the situation perfectly.  And so there's no need to try to explain away the blood by making it be sweat only since the gospel writer said there was "blood falling down to the ground", unless of course your only objective is to try to contradict and criticize Latter-day Saint doctrines.

Edited October 22, 2024 by InCognitus

[GoCeltics]

13 hours ago, InCognitus said:

But the fact remains, the scripture says "His sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground" (NKJV).

But you understand it as “His sweat became great drops of blood” by omitting “like”. 

[InCognitus]

3 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

But you understand it as “His sweat became great drops of blood” by omitting “like”. 

I didn't omit the "like", I quoted how it was translated in the NKJV.  When is sweat ever "like" blood unless there is blood involved?  As the medical article says, "Hematidrosis can look like blood, bloody sweat, or sweat with droplets of blood in it."  That's the best description and fits what the gospel writer says perfectly.

 

 

Edited October 22, 2024 by InCognitus

[theplains]

On 10/14/2024 at 10:52 AM, GoCeltics said:

Question 1: In the Garden of Gethsemane, did Jesus really bleed from every pore?

@InCognitus

The average human body has about 2 to 4 million sweat pores and about 2 to 3 million oil pores.  
For a conservative estimate, let's go with the smaller amount, 2 million sweat pores.  

Let's assume a person sweats from only the sweat pores and not the oil pores.

A drop of blood is typically about 0.05 to 0.1 milliliters.  For a conservative estimate, let's 
go with the smaller amount, 0.05 milliliters.

2 million multiplied by 0.05 equals 100,000 milliliter (100 litres).

The average adult human body contains about 4.5 to 6 liters of blood. This can vary based on 
factors like body size and weight.  Let's go with 6 litres.

So, Jesus supposedly bleeding from every pore could possibly emit the equivalent of blood of at 
least 16 people.

Maybe he mass-produced his blood to bleed from every sweat pore.  Apparently the agony suffering 
on the cross didn't have as severe of an impact on his body or he chose not to bleed from every 
pore in that case.

[InCognitus]

3 hours ago, theplains said:

@InCognitus

The average human body has about 2 to 4 million sweat pores and about 2 to 3 million oil pores.  
For a conservative estimate, let's go with the smaller amount, 2 million sweat pores.  

Let's assume a person sweats from only the sweat pores and not the oil pores.

A drop of blood is typically about 0.05 to 0.1 milliliters.  For a conservative estimate, let's 
go with the smaller amount, 0.05 milliliters.

2 million multiplied by 0.05 equals 100,000 milliliter (100 litres).

The average adult human body contains about 4.5 to 6 liters of blood. This can vary based on 
factors like body size and weight.  Let's go with 6 litres.

So, Jesus supposedly bleeding from every pore could possibly emit the equivalent of blood of at 
least 16 people.

Maybe he mass-produced his blood to bleed from every sweat pore.  Apparently the agony suffering 
on the cross didn't have as severe of an impact on his body or he chose not to bleed from every 
pore in that case.

I can't believe you are going to this extreme to try to refute the biblical text just because it supports a Latter-day Saint doctrine.

This isn't just a "Mormon" thing, it's how the text has been understood for centuries.   

Here is the Adam Clarke Commentary on Matthew 26:38, and below that is his commentary on Luke 22:44.  He wrote this before anyone had to worry about supporting "Mormon" doctrine by agreeing with what the Bible actually says:

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!

And here is the Adam Clarke Commentary on Luke 22:44:

Quote

Prayed more earnestly - With greater emphasis and earnestness than usual, with strong crying and tears, Heb 5:7; the reason given for which is, that he was in an agony. Kypke well observes, Vox αγωνια summum animi angorem et dolorem indicat; et idem est, quod αδημονειν, Mat 26:37; Mar 14:34. "The word αγωνια (agony) points out the utmost anguish and grief of soul, and is of the same import with αδημονειν in Matthew and Mark." See the note on Mat 26:37.

Drops of blood - See the note on Mat 26:38. Some have thought that the meaning of the words is, that the sweat was so profuse that every drop was as large as a drop of blood, not that the sweat was blood itself: but this does not appear likely. There have been cases in which persons in a debilitated state of body, or through horror of soul, have had their sweat tinged with blood. Dr. Mead from Galen observes, Contingere interdum, poros ex multo aut fervido spiritu adeo dilatari, ut etiam exeat sanguis per eos, fiatque sudor sanguineus. "Cases sometimes happen in which, through mental pressure, the pores may be so dilated that the blood may issue from them; so that there may be a bloody sweat." And Bishop Pearce gives an instance from Thuanus (De Thou) of an Italian gentleman being so distressed with the fear of death that his body was covered with a bloody sweat. But it is fully evident that the fear of death could have no place in the mind of our blessed Lord. He was in the bloom of life, in perfect health, and had never suffered any thing from disease of any kind; this sweat was most assuredly produced by a preternatural cause. 

And here's the Matthew Henry commentary on Luke 22:44, who wrote this earlier than Adam Clarke:  

"That, in this agony, his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground. Sweat came in with sin, and was a branch of the curse, Gen. 3:19. And therefore, when Christ was made sin and a curse for us, he underwent a grievous sweat, that in the sweat of his face we might eat bread, and that he might sanctify and sweeten all our trials to us. There is some dispute among the critics whether this sweat is only compared to drops of blood, being much thicker than drops of sweat commonly are, the pores of the body being more than ordinarily opened, or whether real blood out of the capillary veins mingled with it, so that it was in colour like blood, and might truly be called a bloody sweat; the matter is not great. Some reckon this one of the times when Christ shed his blood for us, for without the shedding of blood there is no remission. Every pore was as it were a bleeding wound, and his blood stained all his raiment. This showed the travail of his soul. He was now abroad in the open air, in a cool season, upon the cold ground, far in the night, which, one would think, had been enough to strike in a sweat; yet now he breaks out into a sweat, which bespeaks the extremity of the agony he was in."

And obviously your calculations are flawed because they assume that every pore has to produce a single drop of sweat, when hundreds of thousands of pores combined could sufficiently produce a drop of sweat or blood. "Maximum sweat rates of an adult can be up to 2-4 liters (0.53-1.06 US gal) per hour or 10-14 liters (2.6-3.7 US gal) per day", which, when mixed with blood, is more than enough to produce drops of blood falling to the ground. 

[Pyreaux]

The ὡσεὶ θρόμβοι αἵματος in verse 44 implies it is blood mingled with sweat (what other body fluid can make the sweat appear red?). To steel man it, sure, the Greek words do not necessarily mean more than that the drops of sweat in some way resembled drops of blood, maybe only by it's frequency, and Luke is just strongly wanting to make a symbolic connection with "blood" as atonement imagery, but it is also very possible Luke is conveying heavy thick drops of sweat, which, mingled and colored for the most part with portions of blood, so they looked altogether like great drops of blood.

[GoCeltics]

On 10/22/2024 at 6:35 PM, theplains said:

Maybe he mass-produced his blood to bleed from every sweat pore.  Apparently the agony suffering 
on the cross didn't have as severe of an impact on his body or he chose not to bleed from every 
pore in that case.

I saw this LDS video. It depicts the bleeding part, from only his face; maybe his hands too. One praying session is depicted.

 

 

Edited October 24, 2024 by GoCeltics

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, GoCeltics said:

I saw this LDS video. It depicts the bleeding part, from only his face; maybe his hands too. One praying session is depicted.

The video is rated G.  What did you expect?  

By the way, your efforts to find something to criticize are way past ridiculous, and it's not appropriate for this topic which is about the greatest and most important event in all of history, and one that we consider to be most sacred.

Edited October 24, 2024 by InCognitus

[Pyreaux]

6 hours ago, InCognitus said:

The video is rated G.  What did you expect?  

By the way, your efforts to find something to criticize are way past ridiculous, and it's not appropriate for this topic which is about the greatest and most important event in all of history, and one that we consider to be most sacred.

What next, complaining the LDS film depicting the Crucifixion doesn't show Jesus getting filleted by a cat-of-nine-tails like the Passion of the Christ does? He also sweat blood in that film too.

Edited October 24, 2024 by Pyreaux

[GoCeltics]

On 10/24/2024 at 1:28 PM, InCognitus said:

By the way, your efforts to find something to criticize are way past ridiculous, and it's not appropriate for this topic which is about the greatest and most important event in all of history, and one that we consider to be most sacred.

I’m not trying to criticize; I just wanted to know if changing the order of the words “sweat” and “blood” in the biblical account would affect the meaning.

[InCognitus]

31 minutes ago, GoCeltics said:

I’m not trying to criticize; I just wanted to know if changing the order of the words “sweat” and “blood” in the biblical account would affect the meaning.

No.

[JVW]

I really appreciate the commentary given on this thread. Thank you all for taking time to share your interpretations and views about this holy event. What I wanted to add pales in comparison to what has been shared already.

I believe that the angel that came to comfort Jesus was a woman, not a man as is depicted in any media I've seen depicting that part of the event. No specific reason why, I just think a woman can provide greater comfort in a hug than any man ever could, and the scene feels more beautiful to me imagining it that way.

I also think that it's remarkable that God said that He didn't want to drink from the cup. The One who created all things, and who had all power, didn't want to do it. That really makes clear how difficult the experience in Gethsemane was.

This hasn't been mentioned yet, but I think it adds a beautiful layer to the Gethsemane experience. Throughout history, kings and rulers had a single, most-trusted, person on their staff. That person was the cupbearer. He was the one who drank from the cup at every meal before setting it down for the king to enjoy with his meal. This was because it was easy to administer poison via drinks. The king needed someone he could trust because the cupbearer was in a position where he could secretly poison the cup after sipping it. And the cupbearer was literally putting his life on the line multiple times a day for his king. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cup-bearer

In the event of Gethsemane the Father is the cupbearer. He knows the cup is poisoned, and He knows that Christ has to drink it. Christ knows that the cup is poisoned, and He chooses to drink it. He doesn't take a tiny, apprehensive sip knowing even though that is enough to destroy Him. He willingly drinks even the bitter dregs from the bottom of the cup.

I think that, regardless of the branch of Christianity, participating in the ceremony that involves the cup feels very special. Someone is the cupbearer, and they are in a very trusted position, and could literally cause harm to those who drink from it if they were so inclined. And those who drink put their trust in the cupbearer, just as Christ put His trust in the Father. Because Jesus drank the dregs, our cups are not filled with poison, but with the holy blood of the One who suffered on our behalf.

On 10/22/2024 at 8:07 PM, InCognitus said:

...during his wrestling with God to fall to the ground...

I really liked this part of the quote you shared. Israel means to wrestle with God and let God prevail. Jacob's name was changed to Israel after he wrestled with God. Our lives are a wrestle with God. I never viewed Gethsemane as Christ's wrestle with God. But I really appreciate that He wrestled and lost, and yet again set the example for me to do the same in my own life. (I'm not very good at losing on purpose.)

[InCognitus]

10 hours ago, JVW said:

I really appreciate the commentary given on this thread. Thank you all for taking time to share your interpretations and views about this holy event. What I wanted to add pales in comparison to what has been shared already.

I believe that the angel that came to comfort Jesus was a woman, not a man as is depicted in any media I've seen depicting that part of the event. No specific reason why, I just think a woman can provide greater comfort in a hug than any man ever could, and the scene feels more beautiful to me imagining it that way.

I also think that it's remarkable that God said that He didn't want to drink from the cup. The One who created all things, and who had all power, didn't want to do it. That really makes clear how difficult the experience in Gethsemane was.

This hasn't been mentioned yet, but I think it adds a beautiful layer to the Gethsemane experience. Throughout history, kings and rulers had a single, most-trusted, person on their staff. That person was the cupbearer. He was the one who drank from the cup at every meal before setting it down for the king to enjoy with his meal. This was because it was easy to administer poison via drinks. The king needed someone he could trust because the cupbearer was in a position where he could secretly poison the cup after sipping it. And the cupbearer was literally putting his life on the line multiple times a day for his king. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cup-bearer

In the event of Gethsemane the Father is the cupbearer. He knows the cup is poisoned, and He knows that Christ has to drink it. Christ knows that the cup is poisoned, and He chooses to drink it. He doesn't take a tiny, apprehensive sip knowing even though that is enough to destroy Him. He willingly drinks even the bitter dregs from the bottom of the cup.

I think that, regardless of the branch of Christianity, participating in the ceremony that involves the cup feels very special. Someone is the cupbearer, and they are in a very trusted position, and could literally cause harm to those who drink from it if they were so inclined. And those who drink put their trust in the cupbearer, just as Christ put His trust in the Father. Because Jesus drank the dregs, our cups are not filled with poison, but with the holy blood of the One who suffered on our behalf.

I really liked this part of the quote you shared. Israel means to wrestle with God and let God prevail. Jacob's name was changed to Israel after he wrestled with God. Our lives are a wrestle with God. I never viewed Gethsemane as Christ's wrestle with God. But I really appreciate that He wrestled and lost, and yet again set the example for me to do the same in my own life. (I'm not very good at losing on purpose.)

Interesting insights, thank you.

[GoCeltics]

20 hours ago, JVW said:

I believe that the angel that came to comfort Jesus was a woman, not a man as is depicted in any media I've seen depicting that part of the event. No specific reason why, I just think a woman can provide greater comfort in a hug than any man ever could, and the scene feels more beautiful to me imagining it that way.

What is the gender of the angels in Matthew 4:11?

Edited October 30, 2024 by GoCeltics

[GoCeltics]

20 hours ago, JVW said:

In the event of Gethsemane the Father is the cupbearer. He knows the cup is poisoned, and He knows that Christ has to drink it. Christ knows that the cup is poisoned, and He chooses to drink it. He doesn't take a tiny, apprehensive sip knowing even though that is enough to destroy Him. He willingly drinks even the bitter dregs from the bottom of the cup.

I think that, regardless of the branch of Christianity, participating in the ceremony that involves the cup feels very special. Someone is the cupbearer, and they are in a very trusted position, and could literally cause harm to those who drink from it if they were so inclined. And those who drink put their trust in the cupbearer, just as Christ put His trust in the Father. Because Jesus drank the dregs, our cups are not filled with poison, but with the holy blood of the One who suffered on our behalf.

Do you see any similar parallels with Christ instructing us to pick up our cross and following him?

[JVW]

On 10/30/2024 at 7:30 AM, GoCeltics said:

What is the gender of the angels in Matthew 4:11?

No idea. There isn't really any beauty in my imagination added or removed based on the gender of the angels in this instance. To be clear, I am not definitively stating that the angel was female who comforted Christ, it's just how I like to imagine it.

On 10/30/2024 at 7:43 AM, GoCeltics said:

Do you see any similar parallels with Christ instructing us to pick up our cross and following him?

To be honest I haven't done a lot of research on crosses. I learned a ton from reading Pyreaux's insights earlier in this thread. My off-the-cuff remarks about carrying a cross are as follows...

The phrase indicates that life is heavy if one is truly paying attention. It reminds me of Psalm 34:18 "The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit."

And of this quote from A.W. Towzer (bolding is mine)

Quote

Well, it is not to be wondered at. A real [believer] is an odd number anyway. He feels supreme love for One whom he has never seen, talks familiarly every day to Someone he cannot see, expects to go to heaven on the virtue of Another, empties himself in order to be full, admits he is wrong so he can be declared right, goes down in order to get up, is strongest when he is weakest, richest when he is poorest and happiest when he feels worst. He dies so he can live, forsakes in order to have, gives away so he can keep, sees the invisible, hears the inaudible and knows that which passeth knowledge.

And also what I mentioned earlier about wrestling with God and losing. Feeling defeated and crushed is a requirement in order to have God be near me.

In my own life, with my mother's imminent passing from stage 4 lung cancer, different people have responded in different ways. I have a Pentecostal brother-in-law who believes that when you pray you should ask for things as if you've already received them. And that if you believe strongly enough, then the thing you desire will happen. So he's been very confused with my mother's situation as he's prayed over her and blessed her and told God "thank you for giving her a full recovery".

My journey through this experience has been a very intense wrestle with God. I'm trying to see how this situation can be regarded as the most loving thing God can do for her. Because regardless of whether or not he caused the cancer, he certainly has the power to remove it and give her another 20-30 years of life, so He's intentionally allowing it to happen. As I've prayed and struggled with Him I've come to realize that God doesn't care as much about the situations we experience, He cares more about how we respond to those situations, and about helping us through them. His goal is not for us to be spared from pain, suffering, grief, and death. We are all born terminal. His goal is for all to come unto Christ and be saved. His will for my mom is obviously to bring her back home, and His greatest desire is for my mom to accept the atoning blood of Christ and become purified and holy through Him. So as I've been growing and changing, my desire has become more inline with His. I want to help God accomplish his loving and holy purpose for my mom, so I haven't been praying for her recovery, I've been praying for her heart to be softened and for her to turn to Christ. I've been trying to express God's love to her as much as I can in our limited interactions.

I don't recall if your LDS or not, but I'm also reminded of a really famous chapter in the Book of Mormon, Ether 12:28+. In this chapter Moroni expresses frustration over his weakness in writing and God responds by basically saying "you have a bigger problem, you're going to die one day. But be glad because I have overcome death and the world." Moroni suddenly stops being worried about his crappy writing and starts focusing on Christ.

Carrying the weight of the cross, being keenly aware of our weakness and frailty in mortality, helps us focus more on the One who is trudging the path in front of us. I don't know if I'm making any sense or conveying my ideas properly, this is all just rambling typing.

[GoCeltics]

23 hours ago, JVW said:

Ether 12:28+. In this chapter Moroni expresses frustration over his weakness in writing and God responds by basically saying "you have a bigger problem, you're going to die one day. But be glad because I have overcome death and the world." Moroni suddenly stops being worried about his crappy writing and starts focusing on Christ.

What do you mean? 

[JVW]

5 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

What do you mean? 

Moroni was very self-conscious about his writing. Here are a few quotes about it:
 

Quote

23 And I said unto him: Lord, the Gentiles will mock at these things, because of our weakness in writing; for Lord thou hast made us mighty in word by faith, but thou hast not made us mighty in writing; for thou hast made all this people that they could speak much, because of the Holy Ghost which thou hast given them;

24 And thou hast made us that we could write but little, because of the awkwardness of our hands. Behold, thou hast not made us mighty in writing like unto the brother of Jared, for thou madest him that the things which he wrote were mighty even as thou art, unto the overpowering of man to read them.

25 Thou hast also made our words powerful and great, even that we cannot write them; wherefore, when we write we behold our weakness, and stumble because of the placing of our words; and I fear lest the Gentiles shall mock at our words.

And after God reminds him of his cross to bear and that Christ overcame the world, this is how his focus changes (at the tail end of the chapter)

Quote

40 And only a few have I written, because of my weakness in writing.

41 And now, I would commend you to seek this Jesus of whom the prophets and apostles have written, that the grace of God the Father, and also the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, which beareth record of them, may be and abide in you forever. Amen.

It's a great chapter, I highly recommend it, the first half is reminiscent of Hebrews 11 and I reference both chapters (Hebrews 11 and Ether 7) quite frequently in conversation. Anytime I'm talking about faith, weakness, miracles, the priesthood, and apparently even when talking about Christ's sacrifice in the garden and on the cross.

[Stargazer]

On 10/31/2024 at 5:09 PM, JVW said:

My journey through this experience has been a very intense wrestle with God. I'm trying to see how this situation can be regarded as the most loving thing God can do for her. Because regardless of whether or not he caused the cancer, he certainly has the power to remove it and give her another 20-30 years of life, so He's intentionally allowing it to happen. As I've prayed and struggled with Him I've come to realize that God doesn't care as much about the situations we experience, He cares more about how we respond to those situations, and about helping us through them. His goal is not for us to be spared from pain, suffering, grief, and death. We are all born terminal. His goal is for all to come unto Christ and be saved. His will for my mom is obviously to bring her back home, and His greatest desire is for my mom to accept the atoning blood of Christ and become purified and holy through Him. So as I've been growing and changing, my desire has become more inline with His. I want to help God accomplish his loving and holy purpose for my mom, so I haven't been praying for her recovery, I've been praying for her heart to be softened and for her to turn to Christ. I've been trying to express God's love to her as much as I can in our limited interactions.

One message in October's General Conference deeply affected me about these vicissitudes. It was "Mortality Works!" by Elder Hales.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2024/10/43hales?lang=eng

He spoke of an elderly sister he had known and ministered to, who had had a lot of bad breaks in life. Elder Hales said:

Quote

Nine months after her passing, one of her sons had a remarkable experience in the temple. He learned by the power of the Holy Ghost that his mother had a message for him. She communicated with him, but not by vision or audible words. The following unmistakable message came into the son’s mind from his mother: “I want you to know that mortality works, and I want you to know that I now understand why everything happened [in my life] the way it did—and it is all OK.”

This message is all the more remarkable when one considers her situation and the difficulties this sister endured and overcame.

My late wife had to deal with a fair bit of problems in her life. Towards the end, she was dealing with colon cancer, and then one day had to go to the hospital because things had suddenly become worse. I was unable to be with her when she got the word that she was terminal, but when I showed up she delivered the news to me with a smile! She never faltered in her conviction that things were going the way they were supposed to, and was actually looking forward to the work she knew she would be doing "in the next place." Her conviction that her passing had just as much importance as her living had been was inspirational to me.