Different Perspective

[mikbone]

John 18:6 As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.

If I saw this in a sci-fi script I would imagine a pressure wave forcing the band or multitude away and off their feet.

Yet Matthew does not even mention the event.

Matthew 26:47 And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people.

Mark 14: 50 And they all forsook him, and fled.

Mark’s writing suggests that it was Peter, James and John that went backwards and fell to the ground.

I am uncertain though.  We know that John was an eyewitness though.

Also, how many is a band, multitude, and legion?

Edited April 9, 2023 by mikbone

[Just_A_Guy]

9 hours ago, mikbone said:

John 18:6 As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.

If I saw this in a sci-fi script I would imagine a pressure wave forcing the band or multitude away and off their feet.

Yet Matthew does not even mention the event.

Matthew 26:47 And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people.

Mark 14: 50 And they all forsook him, and fled.

Mark’s writing suggests that it was Peter, James and John that went backwards and fell to the ground.

I am uncertain though.  We know that John was an eyewitness though.

Also, how many is a band, multitude, and legion?

John is the last of the Gospel writers, and throughout his account he is addressing various nonsense theories about Christ that had spring up in the first century—one of which being that Jesus wasn’t really God, but just a man who God’s “essence” could jump in or out of at will.

(Note too that John, the only Gospel writer who actually saw Christ praying and suffering at Gethsemane, doesn’t mention Christ’s suffering there at all.  He just makes it look like “they went there after dinner, and suddenly Judas showed up”.  Perhaps the account of Jesus’s suffering in Gethsemane was already common knowledge when John wrote—or perhaps it was just too tender for him, the eyewitness, to discuss in any detail.)

Bear that in mind as you look at John 18:5-6.  And note that when the account has Jesus saying “I am he”, “he” is in italics—it’s not in the original Greek text; the King James translators added it for clarity.  In the original account Jesus asks who they’re looking for, the soldiers reply “Jesus of Nazareth”, and Jesus simply replies “I AM”—the Tetragrammaton—the name of God that no one in Israel dares utter except the high priest, and him only once a year on the Day of Atonement.  Jesus is, in effect, proclaiming Himself to be one and the same as Jehovah; which fits into John’s overarching theme.  John is subtly saying “see? Even the guys who KILLED Jesus sensed they were dealing with a god made flesh, and understood that this gnostic in-and-out-stuff is nonsense!”

What Jesus has said is shocking enough, but then we remember Luke’s account of the sweating blood.  Jesus, drenched in blood and his clothing stained accordingly, is asked “where’s Jesus of Nazareth”; and His reply is basically “oh, you mean, Jehovah?  I’m right here.”

If you aren’t backing away from Him because of respect the horrific majesty of it all, you’re backing away because of the apparent unhingedness/ insanity of the guy who’s talking. 

Edited April 10, 2023 by Just_A_Guy

[CV75]

9 hours ago, mikbone said:

John 18:6 As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.

If I saw this in a sci-fi script I would imagine a pressure wave forcing the band or multitude away and off their feet.

Yet Matthew does not even mention the event.

Matthew 26:47 And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people.

Mark 14: 50 And they all forsook him, and fled.

Mark’s writing suggests that it was Peter, James and John that went backwards and fell to the ground.

I am uncertain though.  We know that John was an eyewitness though.

Also, how many is a band, multitude, and legion?

A band is typically 300-600 Roman soldiers; multitude is great, unspecified number (crowd, throng, etc. but often translated from the Greek “murias,” which is 10,000--so it is probably a figurative term); 3,000 – 6,000 Roman soldiers in a legion.

[mikbone]

56 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

apparent unhingedness/ insanity of the guy who’s talking. 

I hadn’t considered this possibility.

I like it though.

[mikbone]

34 minutes ago, CV75 said:

A band is typically 300-600 Roman soldiers; multitude is great, unspecified number (crowd, throng, etc. but often translated from the Greek “murias,” which is 10,000--so it is probably a figurative term); 3,000 – 6,000 Roman soldiers in a legion.

I’m not sure what time Jesus exited Gethsemane.  But it sounds like it was sometime between 11 PM & 2 AM.

It is extremely rare to have people gathered at this time of night unless there is an abundance of alcohol involved or a sporting event.

I’m sure the Roman soldiers were irritated to be awakened @ this hour.  ‘Can’t this wait till morning?!’

And I find it even less likely that the adorned and fastidious priests would be willing to leave their comfortable beds.

Truly a miracle.

Edited April 10, 2023 by mikbone

[CV75]

12 hours ago, mikbone said:

I’m not sure what time Jesus exited Gethsemane.  But it sounds like it was sometime between 11 PM & 2 AM.

It is extremely rare to have people gathered at this time of night unless there is an abundance of alcohol involved or a sporting event.

I’m sure the Roman soldiers were irritated to be awakened @ this hour.  ‘Can’t this wait till morning?!’

And I find it even less likely that the adorned and fastidious priests would be willing to leave their comfortable beds.

Truly a miracle.

Yes, the enemies were extremely motivated / instigated, I'm sure!

[Vort]

On 4/9/2023 at 7:27 AM, mikbone said:

John 18:6 As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.

If I saw this in a sci-fi script I would imagine a pressure wave forcing the band or multitude away and off their feet.

Everyone took a step back at realizing they were in the presence of the famous miracle worker of Nazareth. No sci-fi pressure waves, just a normal human reaction, especially for the prevailing culture of the time and place.

On 4/9/2023 at 7:27 AM, mikbone said:

Yet Matthew does not even mention the event.

Matthew 26:47 And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people.

Mark 14: 50 And they all forsook him, and fled.

Mark’s writing suggests that it was Peter, James and John that went backwards and fell to the ground.

I am uncertain though.  We know that John was an eyewitness though.

Also, how many is a band, multitude, and legion?

Band: Most usually four, generally three to six, rarely more than seven (e.g. Lynyrd Skynyrd*)

Multitude: 9<multitude<47; multitudes>=47

Legion: 4200 in the Roman Republic; as many as 6000 in the Empire

*Pronounced 'Lĕh-nérd 'Skin-nérd

[Vort]

I see @CV75 stole my thunder.

[CV75]

8 hours ago, Vort said:

I see @CV75 stole my thunder.

But not your lightning!  

[Jersey Boy]

On 4/9/2023 at 7:52 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

John is the last of the Gospel writers, and throughout his account he is addressing various nonsense theories about Christ that had spring up in the first century—one of which being that Jesus wasn’t really God, but just a man who God’s “essence” could jump in or out of at will.

(Note too that John, the only Gospel writer who actually saw Christ praying and suffering at Gethsemane, doesn’t mention Christ’s suffering there at all.  He just makes it look like “they went there after dinner, and suddenly Judas showed up”.  Perhaps the account of Jesus’s suffering in Gethsemane was already common knowledge when John wrote—or perhaps it was just too tender for him, the eyewitness, to discuss in any detail.)

Bear that in mind as you look at John 18:5-6.  And note that when the account has Jesus saying “I am he”, “he” is in italics—it’s not in the original Greek text; the King James translators added it for clarity.  In the original account Jesus asks who they’re looking for, the soldiers reply “Jesus of Nazareth”, and Jesus simply replies “I AM”—the Tetragrammaton—the name of God that no one in Israel dares utter except the high priest, and him only once a year on the Day of Atonement.  Jesus is, in effect, proclaiming Himself to be one and the same as Jehovah; which fits into John’s overarching theme.  John is subtly saying “see? Even the guys who KILLED Jesus sensed they were dealing with a god made flesh, and understood that this gnostic in-and-out-stuff is nonsense!”

What Jesus has said is shocking enough, but then we remember Luke’s account of the sweating blood.  Jesus, drenched in blood and his clothing stained accordingly, is asked “where’s Jesus of Nazareth”; and His reply is basically “oh, you mean, Jehovah?  I’m right here.”

If you aren’t backing away from Him because of respect the horrific majesty of it all, you’re backing away because of the apparent unhingedness/ insanity of the guy who’s talking. 

John wasn’t much of an actual eyewitness of Christ’s suffering in Gethsemane when it’s considered that he, Peter and James were some distance away from Christ at the time of his suffering, and that they were fast asleep. It may rightly be said that John accompanied Christ when he entered the garden and that he was with him at the time the Gethsemanic suffering was over, but it’s a stretch to say he was an eyewitness.

Edited April 11, 2023 by Jersey Boy

[mikbone]

26 minutes ago, Jersey Boy said:

John wasn’t much of an actual eyewitness of Christ’s suffering in Gethsemane when it’s considered that he, Peter and James were some distance away from Christ at the time of his suffering, and that they were fast asleep. It may rightly be said that John accompanied Christ when he entered the garden and that he was with him at the time the Gethsemanic suffering was over, but it’s a stretch to say he was an eyewitness.

Peter, James & John were eyewitnesses to the band arresting and binding Jesus.

Interestingly though.  Through the Sacrament and covenants we can all become witnesses of Christ’s experience in the garden of Gethsemane.

[Jersey Boy]

On 4/9/2023 at 10:27 AM, mikbone said:

John 18:6 As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.

If I saw this in a sci-fi script I would imagine a pressure wave forcing the band or multitude away and off their feet.

Yet Matthew does not even mention the event.

Matthew 26:47 And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people.

Mark 14: 50 And they all forsook him, and fled.

Mark’s writing suggests that it was Peter, James and John that went backwards and fell to the ground.

I am uncertain though.  We know that John was an eyewitness though.

Also, how many is a band, multitude, and legion?

The way the narrative unfolds makes it a virtual certainty that it was the enemies of Christ who fell backward, not the Lord’s disciples. And why wouldn’t Christ’s enemies be fearful, as it was common knowledge that Christ was a worker of great miracles, including the ability to raise corpses from the dead? Christ had also only very recently demonstrated himself to be an extraordinarily fearless and intimidating figure, as he had only recently aggressively thrown the money changers out of the temple in a justifiable demonstration of divine outrage. In light of these things, I would imagine the band who had come to arrest Christ were filled with great fear and apprehension, dreading the possibility that he might use his miraculous power on them to their overthrow. Their nerves were likely already at a hair-trigger when he was asked who he was, and when he calmly and boldly answered them “I Am,” they blew a gasket.

[mikbone]

I’m not saying I know what happened.  Just interesting that only John records this event of ‘they’ falling backwards to the ground.

https://renner.org/article/roman-soldiers-knocked-flat-by-the-power-of-god/

From above site, Random dudes interpretation.

“Just as the Roman soldiers and temple police were preparing to arrest Jesus, a supernatural power was suddenly released that was so strong, it literally knocked an entire band of 300 to 600 soldiers backward and down on the ground! It was as if an invisible bomb had been detonated. So much explosive strength was released that the power knocked the soldiers flat on their backs! Where did this discharge of power come from, and what released it?”

 

[mikbone]

Commentary and Background Information

John 18:5–8. “I am he”

“These words [‘I am he’] are translated from the Greek phrase egō eimi, used in many other places in John in reference to the divinity of Jesus Christ. … After the Savior said these words, the men and officers ‘went backward, and fell to the ground’ (John 18:6), ‘apparently unable to exercise power over Jesus unless permitted to do so’ (Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 1:780). ‘The simple dignity and gentle yet compelling force of Christ’s presence proved more potent than strong arms and weapons of violence’ (James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, 3rd ed. [1916], 615). This detail shows that the Savior had the ability to overpower his captors but voluntarily submitted to arrest and crucifixion” (New Testament Student Manual [Church Educational System manual, 2014], 256).

Edited April 11, 2023 by mikbone

[Carborendum]

On 4/9/2023 at 6:52 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

Bear that in mind as you look at John 18:5-6.  And note that when the account has Jesus saying “I am he”, “he” is in italics—it’s not in the original Greek text; the King James translators added it for clarity.  In the original account Jesus asks who they’re looking for, the soldiers reply “Jesus of Nazareth”, and Jesus simply replies “I AM”—the Tetragrammaton—the name of God that no one in Israel dares utter except the high priest, and him only once a year on the Day of Atonement.  Jesus is, in effect, proclaiming Himself to be one and the same as Jehovah; which fits into John’s overarching theme.  John is subtly saying “see? Even the guys who KILLED Jesus sensed they were dealing with a god made flesh, and understood that this gnostic in-and-out-stuff is nonsense!”

What Jesus has said is shocking enough, but then we remember Luke’s account of the sweating blood.  Jesus, drenched in blood and his clothing stained accordingly, is asked “where’s Jesus of Nazareth”; and His reply is basically “oh, you mean, Jehovah?  I’m right here.”

If you aren’t backing away from Him because of respect the horrific majesty of it all, you’re backing away because of the apparent unhingedness/ insanity of the guy who’s talking. 

JAG,  as much as I think it would have certainly been a magnificent interchange, I have some alternative points.  I'm not certain it happened that way.  The use of the Tetragrammaton is not all that clear. 

We don't know what version of "I am" Jesus actually verbalized.  All we have is the Greek.  Everything else is a translation from Greek (unless you buy into the Aramaic originalism theory -- I'm agnostic on the topic).  And in Greek, it is simply two words "I" and "am" (εγώ εἰμι / ego eimi).  We just don't know what he actually said as far as the nuances.  In real life did He even say it in Hebrew?  Or was it in Aramaic? Or did he say it in Greek?  Most Jews of the day spoke all three, some more or less fluently.  And it simply wouldn't have had the same force if it weren't in Hebrew.  Even if it were Hebrew, did He say "I" or "I AM"?

Comparisons with the Old Testament are foggy.  Some places where the Hebrew uses the "I" absent the verb ( (referring to mortals) the Greek sometimes uses "I" and sometimes "I am."

Did he actually speak the Tetragrammaton?  It is certainly possible.  And it would have explained why they stepped back -- aside from the fact that Jesus had "a Presence"  

But I'm not sure that is what happened.  Why did they step back?  I've seen reactions like that when someone simply responds with such overpowering confidence that people are shocked.

• They had all heard all the stories of his miracles (both the priests and their guards).
• They knew that Jesus had become popular.
• They felt that they had to have multiple guards with them to overpower them.
• Then all of a sudden the guy is only 1 ft away from them and he shows no signs of fear of all the guards that they have.  He must have some secret weapon ready to pounce.  (checks for lasers on his chest -- figuratively, of course).

I think that all played a part.  Did he say the Tetragrammaton?  Could be.  But we'll never know in this life.

 

As for the blood, Luke's account used the phrase "as it were" which means Luke was using figurative language. It wasn't actually blood.

As far as we know Luke was a physician.  So, he thought of the pain of the body as well as anguish of soul.  Luke was trying to convey the level of agony through use of powerful imagery.  So, no, he was not drenched in blood when he returned from praying.

[zil2]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

As for the blood, Luke's account used the phrase "as it were" which means Luke was using figurative language. It wasn't actually blood.

Yeah, sure, fine, this is how every other Christian dismisses this passage, but we have the Lord's words:

Quote

D&C 19:18 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

...while we have no account of people's reactions to his appearance - perhaps it was a moonless night, I don't know - I believe the Lord's account and short of miraculous removal of this blood, I expect he looked a bit of a mess if not downright scary.

I do not know why people have such a problem believing that Christ simply let a bit of his power and authority and majesty show through when he declared that he was the person they sought.  So unless they all tripped over their own feet while stepping back for personal reasons (which I don't believe), I'm quite happy to believe that the momentary assertion of his glory caused them to fall in a not dissimilar way to how one day every knee will bow.

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

Yeah, sure, fine, this is how every other Christian dismisses this passage, but we have the Lord's words:

Yes, I was aware of the D&C passage.  But it seems to be figurative as well.  Not as clearly worded as Luke.  But still figurative.  

I'm certain most of us have experienced sufficient physical and/or emotional pain that caused us to sweat from every pore.  In this case the pain was so great that it did, indeed, cause him to sweat profusely from every pore.  And for the pain that was caused, it may as well have been blood.

Whether moonless night or not, I'm just not seeing it.  He was given no chance to change clothes throughout the trial.  Did no one notice the blood all over his clothing?  No one under the Law of Moses saw this as an "unclean" condition?  The servants of the Jewish leadership freely took him and his bloody clothes and not a single complaint about having to handle someone covered in blood?

When the Romans stripped him and scourged him, no one noticed blood already all over his body and clothes?  When the soldiers cast lots over his robes, they didn't care that they had blood all over them?

While I'm not 100% discounting the idea.  But if we are to believe it literally, something is missing in this equation.

BTW, the physical condition hematohydrosis is still not really understood.  While it is theorized that it is caused by stress, we don't know if is any significant stress that causes it.  So, we don't even know whether this was the phenomenon that the Savior experienced.

Edited April 12, 2023 by Carborendum

[zil2]

35 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Yes, I was aware of the D&C passage.  But it seems to be figurative as well.

I see nothing figurative about it.  The language is plain and clear.  As to why the rest is missing from the Bible - heaven knows - maybe the authors never felt it appropriate to write about it, maybe they didn't know how, or maybe scribes removed it.  And we don't know exactly how much blood was involved.  But I believe the exact words written in the D&C.

[mikbone]

2 hours ago, zil2 said:

I do not know why people have such a problem believing that Christ simply let a bit of his power and authority and majesty show through when he declared that he was the person they sought.

Im sure when Jesus cleaned out the temple the money changers were terrified.  And he didn’t need to use any of his almighty powers at that time.  A man on a mission who is full of determination and knows that his cause is just is an unstoppable force.

I can’t think of a time on Earth when there had ever been a more determined man.

[Jersey Boy]

6 hours ago, mikbone said:

Im sure when Jesus cleaned out the temple the money changers were terrified.  And he didn’t need to use any of his almighty powers at that time.  A man on a mission who is full of determination and knows that his cause is just is an unstoppable force.

I can’t think of a time on Earth when there had ever been a more determined man.

And the fact that it was also widely known that courageous Jesus was also a worker of many mighty miracles, including the raising of the dead, had to have added to the trepidation of those who were sent to arrest him.

[Just_A_Guy]

On 4/12/2023 at 7:54 PM, Carborendum said:

Yes, I was aware of the D&C passage.  But it seems to be figurative as well.  Not as clearly worded as Luke.  But still figurative.  

I'm certain most of us have experienced sufficient physical and/or emotional pain that caused us to sweat from every pore.  In this case the pain was so great that it did, indeed, cause him to sweat profusely from every pore.  And for the pain that was caused, it may as well have been blood.

Whether moonless night or not, I'm just not seeing it.  He was given no chance to change clothes throughout the trial.  Did no one notice the blood all over his clothing?  No one under the Law of Moses saw this as an "unclean" condition?  The servants of the Jewish leadership freely took him and his bloody clothes and not a single complaint about having to handle someone covered in blood?

When the Romans stripped him and scourged him, no one noticed blood already all over his body and clothes?  When the soldiers cast lots over his robes, they didn't care that they had blood all over them?

While I'm not 100% discounting the idea.  But if we are to believe it literally, something is missing in this equation.

BTW, the physical condition hematohydrosis is still not really understood.  While it is theorized that it is caused by stress, we don't know if is any significant stress that causes it.  So, we don't even know whether this was the phenomenon that the Savior experienced.

Your comments are, as always, eminently fair and reasonable.  But to @zil2’s comments I would add a citation to Mosiah 3:7 and an observation that the phrase “every pore” appears in conference sermons no fewer than 100 times, in sermons going all the way back to Brigham Young.  I don’t necessarily want to say that the idea that Jesus didn’t *literally* bleed at every pore, is incorrect; but within the LDS Church it certainly seems to be a minority position at present.

[mikbone]

I have always reckoned that Jesus cleaned himself prior to exiting the garden.

This is the same guy that folded his burial clothes prior to leaving the tomb.  

John 20:7

And said this:

Matthew 6:16 Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
17 But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face;

 

[mikbone]

Ego eimi - I am

This is also the first time that this statement had teeth.  Up until this point, the atonement had been a prophecy or an expectation.

After the Garden, Jesus had committed himself like never before.  It was real.  It was happening now.  At this moment, He was fulfilling the title.   

Edited April 15, 2023 by mikbone

[Colirio]

.

Edited April 15, 2023 by Colirio
Forgot that I stopped posting on this site.

[Carborendum]

On 4/15/2023 at 4:55 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

Your comments are, as always, eminently fair and reasonable.  But to @zil2’s comments I would add a citation to Mosiah 3:7 and an observation that the phrase “every pore” appears in conference sermons no fewer than 100 times, in sermons going all the way back to Brigham Young.  I don’t necessarily want to say that the idea that Jesus didn’t *literally* bleed at every pore, is incorrect; but within the LDS Church it certainly seems to be a minority position at present.

Thanks for you comment, JAG.

Yes, I realize I'm holding a minority position.  And I'm not trying to diminish anyone who would disagree with me.  But my position has developed based on a lot of thought considering two questions:

• If it were figurative, what would need to be true?
  • Nothing other than the Lord suffered both body and spirit at a level that no mortal man could possibly have suffered.  No on here doubts that.
• If it were literal, what would need to be true?
  • The same as the above &...
  • This phenomenon of hematohydrosis would have to be on a level that has no known analog from anywhere in medical history.  (I'll explain)... OR
  • There was something else going on that we don't understand. (See note 1 below).

As I understand hematohydrosis...

• It occurs because a person is born with blood vessels that intertwine with sweat glands and paths such that blood can easily be excreted through pores.
• For someone with this condition, it does take some level of stress, but not necessarily an extreme level of stress, to thus bleed.
• Another person without this condition can have the same level of stress and even much more without ever bleeding.
• IOW, from a medical perspective, the idea of sweating blood has no real significance with regard to how much pain or suffering the Savior went through.
• So from a medical perspective, the Savior bleeding from every pore would only mean he had one of the worst intertwining of blood and sweat vessels that has ever been recorded.  But it really had no bearing on the level of suffering he went through.

Reading it figuratively:

• We, the readers, recognize that the idea of "bleeding from every pore" is powerful imagery.  And the "idea" of bleeding from every pore  is much more penetrating than the literal physiological reality of doing so.  Thus, the "idea" is told and re-told because it is so powerful.  But the literal?  When you realize the reality, it isn't as big a deal as we might think.
• It simply reads like the language that was so often used in Jewish culture.
  • e.g. "by the life of my head."  That doesn't mean that a person's head has any special life force beyond the human being as a whole. There is imagery/metaphor there.  There is also a finality since some very few can survive from a stab through the heart.  But if you're beheaded, there's no coming back from that.  Period.  But again it is about the absoulte-ness and the finality of it, the "idea" of it that is the important message.  It doesn't mean that the forfeiture of life (for violating such oath) must be by beheading.  The aforementioned death can be by any means.

NOTE 1: I've heard a particular commentator proposing the following idea.  The Father and Son are so intertwined that we might consider a doctrine that borders on the Trinitarian view.  This is similar to what Elder McConkie said about how "they are one in a manner that is much more significant than simply being one in purpose."

This person theorized that when Jesus was left utterly alone, that their spirits were so intertwined, when the Father had to depart from him, it pulled the blood from His veins.

Talk about powerful imagery!  I have no idea if that is true.  But WOW!  How powerful that image.