Gethsemane & The Cross

[Guest]

The following talk has stood as a landmark speech, testmony, and declaration of doctrine on the Savior's Atonement.

The Purifying Power of Gethsemane Bruce R. McConkie

Quote

I feel, and the Spirit seems to accord, that the most important doctrine I can declare, and the most powerful testimony I can bear, is of the atoning sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ.

His atonement is the most transcendent event that ever has or ever will occur from Creation’s dawn through all the ages of a never-ending eternity.

I try to read this every Easter.  I still get tears in my eyes as I read it.  It truly s a beautifully written sermon as well as an informative treatise on the Atonement of Christ.  And I continue to be moved by this speech even after 30 years or so.

But there is one statement that I accepted so many years ago, that I've never been able to find any corroboration for.  I've never heard any other apostle repeat it.  I've never heard anyone able to find a source for it.  But I've simply taken it to be true.

Quote

Then the heavens grew black. Darkness covered the land for the space of three hours, as it did among the Nephites. There was a mighty storm, as though the very God of Nature was in agony.

And truly he was, for while he was hanging on the cross for another three hours, from noon to 3:00 P.M., all the infinite agonies and merciless pains of Gethsemane recurred.

The doctrine that Christ's suffering in Gethsemane recurred on the Cross, that he sweat great gouts of blood from every pore again on the cross is something I've been unable to find.  Does anyone know where this comes from?

Edited April 2, 2018 by Guest

[CV75]

14 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

The following talk has stood as a landmark speech, testmony, and declaration of doctrine on the Savior's Atonement.

The Purifying Power of Gethsemane Bruce R. McConkie

I try to read this every Easter.  I still get tears in my eyes as I read it.  It truly s a beautifully written sermon as well as an informative treatise on the Atonement of Christ.  And I continue to be moved by this speech even after 30 years or so.

But there is one statement that I accepted so many years ago, that I've never been able to find any corroboration for.  I've never heard any other apostle repeat it.  I've never heard anyone able to find a source for it.  But I've simply taken it to be true.

The doctrine that Christ's suffering in Gethsemane recurred on the Cross, that he sweat great gouts of blood from every pore again on the cross is something I've been unable to find.  Does anyone know where this comes from?

Recur can also mean to come back to one's mind, so maybe he's describing the Lord's thoughts and reflections while on the cross. But I have not heard this stated elsewhere by anyone.

[Guest]

48 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Recur can also mean to come back to one's mind, so maybe he's describing the Lord's thoughts and reflections while on the cross. But I have not heard this stated elsewhere by anyone.

I didn't get that meaning in context.

I believe it was based on the notion that a few have stated.  That The Father and Son were so One in Spirit and Body that when the Father withdrew, that this is what caused the blood to be pulled from The Son's veins.  And by Jesus words, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthanai?, The Father withdrew. therefore, the pains recurred.

But that is dependent on that notion of the blood being true. And I haven't heard that from a real source.

Edited April 2, 2018 by Guest

[MrShorty]

I don't know if it is "The Source" Elder McKonkie used, but it got seared in my memory when I read Elder Talmage's Jesus the Christ, who also uses the word recur. In Chapter 35, commenting on the Savior's utterance, "My God, My God, Why hast thou forsaken me?", Elder Talmage wrote

Quote

It seems, that in addition to the fearful suffering incident to crucifixion, the agony of Gethsemane had recurred, intensified beyond human power to endure.

I think I remembered this so readily because, when I first read Jesus the Christ I had learned something like "most of the suffering was in Gethsemane and the Cross was a less significant suffering. Elder Talmage was kind of the first one that I ever came across who said that Christ's suffering on the Cross was at least as deep as that experienced in Gethsamene.

Edited April 2, 2018 by MrShorty

[Guest]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I don't know if it is "The Source" Elder McKonkie used, but it got seared in my memory when I read Elder Talmage's Jesus the Christ, who also uses the word recur. In Chapter 35, commenting on the Savior's utterance, "My God, My God, Why hast thou forsaken me?", Elder Talmage wrote

I think I remembered this so readily because, when I first read Jesus the Christ I had learned something like "most of the suffering was in Gethsemane and the Cross was a less significant suffering. Elder Talmage was kind of the first one that I ever came across who said that Christ's suffering on the Cross was at least as deep as that experienced in Gethsamene.

It's a start.

[wenglund]

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

The doctrine that Christ's suffering in Gethsemane recurred on the Cross, that he sweat great gouts of blood from every pore again on the cross is something I've been unable to find.  Does anyone know where this comes from?

There are several scriptures that lend corroboration:

1 Pe. 2:24: ""Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. (Bold mine)

D&C 138:35: "And so it was made known among the dead, both small and great, the unrighteous as well as the faithful, that redemption had been wrought through the ^asacrifice of the Son of God upon the ^bcross."

Regarding the Son, Col 1:20 states: "And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself..." (bold mine)

Isa 53  echoes this and seems to suggest that the "suffering" preceded Gethsemane and continued on through Golgotha.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

:

[CV75]

12 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I didn't get that meaning in context.

I believe it was based on the notion that a few have stated.  That The Father and Son were so One in Spirit and Body that when the Father withdrew, that this is what caused the blood to be pulled from The Son's veins.  And by Jesus words, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthanai?, The Father withdrew. therefore, the pains recurred.

But that is dependent on that notion of the blood being true. And I haven't heard that from a real source.

The context for the mental recurrence that I see is that the article doesn't say that the agony and pain were expressed or manifest a second time by blood coming from every pore (Mosiah 3:7, and Hebrews 9:12, 1 Peter 3:18 indicate it was "once"). Without the presence of the Father, there would not be much positive opposition in His mind. What is impressive to me is the span of time and the suffering occurring between the shedding of His blood and His actual death.

[Traveler]

 

The greatest impact concerning Gethsemane and the Cross in my life came last year in my visit to Israel.   Many things and ideas I had formed about the Atonement took on a whole new landscape when I stood on or near the actual places and understood a little more concerning the similar symbols (such as making of vinegar and gethsemane).  I thought being there would be kind of neat – I was not prepared for the whole spirit of being there where it all took place.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

I thought to add something about Gethsemane that I learned while visiting Israel.  There is some notion in the term Gethsemane about a wine or olive press.  It is interesting that an olive press is the final stage in the ancient use of grapes.   The first stage in the use of grapes was done with bare feet pressing (walking on) grapes.  This “gentle pressing” would produce what was called “new” or “best” wine.  The second stage would take the pulp that remained from the first stage and place it in baskets – on top of each other.  A different press was used that would squeeze juices from the pulp using a lever and weights against the baskets.  This wine was not the best and not the new wine – is was the cheap stuff and lacked the flavor of new wine.

The final stage took what remained from pressing the baskets – in essence it was just the stems, grape skins and seeds.  This was placed in the olive press and crushed between large and heavy stone rolling against stone.  The result was a bitter liquid that was called vinegar.  The ancient term for crushing that last of anything usable (good) from grapes was the term Gethsemane.  This meaning of Gethsemane was passed to me by a licensed tour guide (which by law must be a Jew by blood) as the official meaning of the term Gethsemane among the Jews at the time of Jesus.  Interesting the Passover ritual included new wine – some not new wine and ended in a sip of bitter vinegar created by Gethsemane and was part of Jesus with his apostles and what we call today as "the last supper".   

 

The Traveler

Edited April 3, 2018 by Traveler

[Jersey Boy]

On 4/1/2018 at 8:02 PM, Carborendum said:

The following talk has stood as a landmark speech, testmony, and declaration of doctrine on the Savior's Atonement.

The Purifying Power of Gethsemane Bruce R. McConkie

I try to read this every Easter.  I still get tears in my eyes as I read it.  It truly s a beautifully written sermon as well as an informative treatise on the Atonement of Christ.  And I continue to be moved by this speech even after 30 years or so.

But there is one statement that I accepted so many years ago, that I've never been able to find any corroboration for.  I've never heard any other apostle repeat it.  I've never heard anyone able to find a source for it.  But I've simply taken it to be true.

The doctrine that Christ's suffering in Gethsemane recurred on the Cross, that he sweat great gouts of blood from every pore again on the cross is something I've been unable to find.  Does anyone know where this comes from?

The scriptures repeatedly tell us that in order to successfully offer an infinite and eternal atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world that the Lord Jesus Christ would be required to drink to the very dregs the bitter cup of God’s divine wrath, a figurative cup overflowing with divine retribution that would otherwise have to have been poured out upon humanity in the form of an endless punishment for which there is no hope of relief. Upon leaving Gethsemane and the sufferings he endured there, the Savior made it clear to Peter that he had not yet consumed the entire contents of the bitter cup of God’s wrath, and, therefore, that more suffering for sin — the dreadful experience of having to endure the exquisite agonies that can only be known by being totally cut off from the loving presence  of God — were required of him. Upon exiting the garden the Lord uttered the following solemn words...

“11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? (John 18)

If the Savior had already consumed to the dregs the bitter cup of God’s divine wrath while in Gethsemane, he wouldn’t have cried out in superhuman woe while on the cross, where he pled with Father to know why he had been cut off from his presence and forsaken while simultaneously also being called upon to endure the unspeakable physical and emotional agonies of crucifixion. If the entire contents of the bitter cup had already been entirely consumed and neutralize by Christ while in Gethsemane, it would have been unjjust and cruel for the Father to subject his son to a situation and state of mind where he was subjected to unfathomable physical, emotional and spiritual agony.

Ask yourself this question: When he first appeared to the Nephites after his resurrection, why didn’t the Savior proclaim to them that he had suffered in a garden in Jerusalem for the sins of the world instead of saying that he he had been “crucified for the sins of the world?” (3 Nephi 11) The last dregs of the bitter cup of God’s wrath for sin were consumed and neutralized by Christ as he suffered on Calvary’s cruel cross. The physical, emotional and spiritual sufferings he endured there were so great that they were enough to cause an otherwise immortal being to die, quite literally, of a broken heart.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Jersey Boy

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

I thought to add something about Gethsemane that I learned while visiting Israel.  There is some notion in the term Gethsemane about a wine or olive press.  It is interesting that an olive press is the final stage in the ancient use of grapes.   The first stage in the use of grapes was done with bare feet pressing (walking on) grapes.  This “gentle pressing” would produce what was called “new” or “best” wine.  The second stage would take the pulp that remained from the first stage and place it in baskets – on top of each other.  A different press was used that would squeeze juices from the pulp using a lever and weights against the baskets.  This wine was not the best and not the new wine – is was the cheap stuff and lacked the flavor of new wine.

The final stage took what remained from pressing the baskets – in essence it was just the stems, grape skins and seeds.  This was placed in the olive press and crushed between large and heavy stone rolling against stone.  The result was a bitter liquid that was called vinegar.  The ancient term for crushing that last of anything usable (good) from grapes was the term Gethsemane.  This meaning of Gethsemane was passed to me by a licensed tour guide (which by law must be a Jew by blood) as the official meaning of the term Gethsemane among the Jews at the time of Jesus.  Interesting the Passover ritual included new wine – some not new wine and ended in a sip of bitter vinegar created by Gethsemane and was part of Jesus with his apostles and what we call today as "the last supper".   

There is a double symbol in "Gethsemane".

Recall the allegory of "The Good Samaritan".  The Samaritan (Christ) hated of the Jews, raised the man left (spiritually) dead.  He bound up his wounds (baptism) poured in wine (atoning blood) and oil (refining power of the Holy Ghost). 

Quote

For by the water ye keep the commandment; by the Spirit ye are justified, and by the blood ye are sanctified;

The dual symbology of wine and oil is had in that meaning of Gethsemane you shared.  We use olive oil in blessings and NO OTHER OIL or substance is to be used because it invokes Christ's Atonement and suffering in Gethsemane.

[zil]

Welcome, @Jersey Boy!

[Jersey Boy]

2 hours ago, zil said:

Welcome, @Jersey Boy!

Thank you!

 

[Traveler]

On ‎4‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 9:17 AM, Traveler said:

I thought to add something about Gethsemane that I learned while visiting Israel.  There is some notion in the term Gethsemane about a wine or olive press.  It is interesting that an olive press is the final stage in the ancient use of grapes.   The first stage in the use of grapes was done with bare feet pressing (walking on) grapes.  This “gentle pressing” would produce what was called “new” or “best” wine.  The second stage would take the pulp that remained from the first stage and place it in baskets – on top of each other.  A different press was used that would squeeze juices from the pulp using a lever and weights against the baskets.  This wine was not the best and not the new wine – is was the cheap stuff and lacked the flavor of new wine.

The final stage took what remained from pressing the baskets – in essence it was just the stems, grape skins and seeds.  This was placed in the olive press and crushed between large and heavy stone rolling against stone.  The result was a bitter liquid that was called vinegar.  The ancient term for crushing that last of anything usable (good) from grapes was the term Gethsemane.  This meaning of Gethsemane was passed to me by a licensed tour guide (which by law must be a Jew by blood) as the official meaning of the term Gethsemane among the Jews at the time of Jesus.  Interesting the Passover ritual included new wine – some not new wine and ended in a sip of bitter vinegar created by Gethsemane and was part of Jesus with his apostles and what we call today as "the last supper".   

 

The Traveler

 

I thought to add something personal to this post – I realize that there is a lot of talk about “doctrine” on forums like this and in discussions in general.  When I visited the mount of olives I went to a private place that an LDS prophet of these Latter-days said was near the place of Gethsemane for Christ.  As I pondered this meaning of crushing all goodness from grapes – I was struck, not so much by the place I stood but by Jesus enduring a complete crush of his personal Gethsemane – not just for me but even those I personally despise for whatever reason.  I cannot prove what I felt by any scripture or any message from a prophet.  I will not argue with those that want to make a big deal about Jesus on the cross and his final moments of life – but I will say that I am convinced that it was what happened at Gethsemane is that which required the willing sacrifice of the only begotten Son of G-d.  Without Gethsemane – what happened on the cross would have been meaningless and the resurrection of Christ would not have made our resurrection possible.

 

The Traveler

[bytebear]

Like so many things related to the great plan of God, there is a spiritual and a physical aspect (physical death/spiritual death, spiritual creation/physical creation).  It makes perfect sense to me that there would be a spiritual atonement in the garden, and a physical one on the cross.

[Guest]

13 hours ago, bytebear said:

Like so many things related to the great plan of God, there is a spiritual and a physical aspect (physical death/spiritual death, spiritual creation/physical creation).  It makes perfect sense to me that there would be a spiritual atonement in the garden, and a physical one on the cross.

That sound all well and good.  But that isn't the phrase that McConkie said.  He said the SAME suffering in Gethsemane RECURRED on the cross.

[bytebear]

Well, McConkie has also been known to say things that weren't doctrinally sound.

 

[wenglund]

30 minutes ago, bytebear said:

Well, McConkie has also been known to say things that weren't doctrinally sound.

 

It is also possible that you are both correct. It all depends upon whether or not one considers physical death, itself, as  suffering.  McKenzie evidently doesn't, whereas you and I might.. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest]

7 hours ago, bytebear said:

Well, McConkie has also been known to say things that weren't doctrinally sound.

Everyone has.  That doesn't mean that's the first conclusion we jump to when we hear something we don't understand.

As a General Conference Talk that has been recorded and kept and oft referenced for over 30 years, it is something we need to look at thoroughly before just tossing "Oh, he probably just made a mistake" at it.

[Jersey Boy]

9 hours ago, bytebear said:

Well, McConkie has also been known to say things that weren't doctrinally sound.

 

Apostle Jeffrey R Holland echoed the teachings of apostles James E Talmage and Bruce R McConkie concerning the recurring Gethsemanic suffering the Savior was called upon to endure while nailed to Calvary’s cross in his April 2009 General Conference talk titled “None Were With Him.” Here are a portion of his words:

Thus, of divine necessity, the supporting circle around Jesus gets smaller and smaller and smaller, giving significance to Matthew’s words: “All the disciples fled.”

Peter stayed near enough to be recognized and confronted. John stood at the foot of the cross with Jesus’s mother. Especially and always the blessed women in the Savior’s life stayed as close to Him as they could. But essentially His lonely journey back to His Father continued without comfort or companionship.

Now I speak very carefully, even reverently, of what may have been the most difficult moment in all of this solitary journey to Atonement. I speak of those final moments for which Jesus must have been prepared intellectually and physically but which He may not have fully anticipated emotionally and spiritually—that concluding descent into the paralyzing despair of divine withdrawal when He cries in ultimate loneliness, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”16

The loss of mortal support He had anticipated, but apparently He had not comprehended this. Had He not said to His disciples, “Behold, the hour … is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me” and “The Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him”?17

With all the conviction of my soul I testify that He did please His Father perfectly and that a perfect Father did not forsake His Son in that hour. Indeed, it is my personal belief that in all of Christ’s mortal ministry the Father may never have been closer to His Son than in these agonizing final moments of suffering. Nevertheless, that the supreme sacrifice of His Son might be as complete as it was voluntary and solitary, the Father briefly withdrew from Jesus the comfort of His Spirit, the support of His personal presence. It was required, indeed it was central to the significance of the Atonement, that this perfect Son who had never spoken ill nor done wrong nor touched an unclean thing had to know how the rest of humankind—us, all of us—would feel when we did commit such sins. For His Atonement to be infinite and eternal, He had to feel what it was like to die not only physically but spiritually, to sense what it was like to have the divine Spirit withdraw, leaving one feeling totally, abjectly, hopelessly alone. (Jeffrey R Holland, ‘None Were With Him,’ April 2009)

Edited April 8, 2018 by Jersey Boy

[SpiritDragon]

@Carborendum you've likely seen this before as it's your same question, but in the event it helps you at all...

 

https://askgramps.org/christs-dual-suffering/

 

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

@Carborendum you've likely seen this before as it's your same question, but in the event it helps you at all...

https://askgramps.org/christs-dual-suffering/

I had not read that.  But, yeah, that is my same question.  And there really isn't an answer.  But I appreciate the author's testimony.

[SpiritDragon]

On 4/1/2018 at 6:02 PM, Carborendum said:

all the infinite agonies and merciless pains of Gethsemane recurred.

I can't help but think that if the Saviour had bled from every pore a second time we would have record of that (I would imagine it would have made it into at least one of the gospels or at the very least restored in Joseph Smith's inspired version of the bible). My thought would be that the equivalent depth of agony and pain could have possibly recurred without the same outward manifestation of the pain and agony. I don't see anything  in Elder McConkie's words (or the others) to explicitly refer to the bleeding from every pore happening a second time, but that he suffered all the same agony and pain.

I suppose I also tend to think that if the atoning process allowed Christ to perfectly understand all of our pains and sufferings without experiencing all of the exact same things could he not experience pain and suffering equivalent to his own without going through the exact same experience?

 

[MrShorty]

12 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

I can't help but think that if the Saviour had bled from every pore a second time we would have record of that (I would imagine it would have made it into at least one of the gospels or at the very least restored in Joseph Smith's inspired version of the bible).

Considering that the only extant record (Luke 22:44) that we can trace has been strongly disputed since the 19th century by those who do textual criticism of the Bible (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_22:43–44), I don't know that the absence of such a record is any proof that such suffering did not recur on the cross. Considering that the JST was never completed, I'm also not sure if I would call an absence of such restoration (assuming that we consider the JST restoration of scripture to its original and not something else, which I am not sure of) proof that such suffering did not recur on the cross.

I guess that, as I descend further away from my "scriptural literalist" roots, I find myself not needing to parse scripture down to every choice of word. I can accept that Christ suffered more than I or any other mortal man could possibly suffer. Whether that suffering literally caused Him to sweat blood or not, or how much of His suffering occurred in Gethsemane vs. the cross, or other questions around some of these details can get difficult to answer definitively -- and that is okay with me.

 

[SpiritDragon]

1 minute ago, MrShorty said:

Considering that the only extant record (Luke 22:44) that we can trace has been strongly disputed since the 19th century by those who do textual criticism of the Bible (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_22:43–44), I don't know that the absence of such a record is any proof that such suffering did not recur on the cross. Considering that the JST was never completed, I'm also not sure if I would call an absence of such restoration (assuming that we consider the JST restoration of scripture to its original and not something else, which I am not sure of) proof that such suffering did not recur on the cross.

I guess that, as I descend further away from my "scriptural literalist" roots, I find myself not needing to parse scripture down to every choice of word. I can accept that Christ suffered more than I or any other mortal man could possibly suffer. Whether that suffering literally caused Him to sweat blood or not, or how much of His suffering occurred in Gethsemane vs. the cross, or other questions around some of these details can get difficult to answer definitively -- and that is okay with me.

 

That is completely possible as well.