> General Discussions

Did Christ sweat blood?

<< < (6/9) > >>

hillsbororiver:
It is my belief that our Lord did experience an exteme amount of stress that none of us can even begin to imagine.

In an earlier response I named the medical term for this;

hematidrosis /he·ma·tid·ro·sis/ (he?mah-tid-ro´sis) excretion of bloody sweat. (Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers)

We have learned that virtually everything in scripture whether a literal event or prophetic is in fact a parable of a deeper spiritual truth, I am not going to expound on my feeling or even speculate as to what this deeper truth might be but I did want to throw some other points and scriptures into the mix.

 1Jn 5:6  This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

What exactly is sweat? It is primarily water and salt, what is one of the uses of salt in scripture, what is salt's place in regard to sacrifice?

Lev 2:13  And every oblation of thy meat offering shalt thou season with salt; neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meat offering: with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt.

Did our Lord salt the fulfilment of all sacrifices with the salt of His own Body?


Another interesting bit;
 
Heb 9:19  For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people,

Joh 19:29  Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a sponge with vinegar and put it upon hyssop and put it to his mouth.

Joh 19:34  But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side and forthwith came there out blood and water.

Is there another scripture that testifies to John 19:34?

His Peace to you,

Joe

Brett:
Hi Joe,

Good post. Sometimes I wonder what it mean in John 19:34  "...spear pierced his side and forthwith came there out blood and water." (sorry I couldn't find another scripture testifies in John 19:34), is that something about what kind of blood look alike? Like thin blood came from heart and other thick blood (with out water) came from somewhere in body?

Or other: is that mean only Jesus had water and blood or both Him and all humans too?

I'm just learning and wondering. Thanks for brought up, Joe :).

Brett

Brett:

--- Quote from: Arcturus on April 12, 2007, 07:45:06 PM ---Hello Brett

I think that AS-IF means as you say..."like" and my post simply was to add to what you observed too!

Peace to you

Arcturus :)



--- End quote ---

Arcturus, Thank you ;).

Brett :D

Deborah-Leigh:
Hello Joe

Thank you for the edifying scriptures and thoughts.

1 Cor 11 : 25 Similarly when supper was ended, He took the cup also, saying, This cup is the new covenant, ratified and established in MY BLOOD. do this as often as you drink it, to call Me affectionately to remembrance.

John 7 : 38 He who believes in Me, who cleaves to and trusts in and relies on Me, as the Scripture has said, From his innermost being shall flow continuously, springs and rivers of living water.

These may have some bearing on John 19 : 34. In fact I think the whole Bible is the witness to that scripture especially Revelations!

My pleasure Brett!

Peace to you

Arcturus :)

Pax Vobiscum:

--- Quote from: Bill on April 11, 2007, 08:03:41 PM ---
--- Quote from: Pax Vobiscum on April 11, 2007, 07:23:44 PM ---I can look up the references if you wish, but my recollection is that the sweating of blood (bleeding of sweat?) was not recorded earlier than the Latin Vulgate.  Since many translations used the Vulgate as their primary source, the entries continued.


--- End quote ---
Hi Pax,

If you would not mind I would be interested in hearing more one this.  When you have the time of course. 

If it is true that you feel it was added and is not scripture why do you feel it was added?

Thanks

--- End quote ---


Well, Bill here’s my two cents on Lk 22:43-44 – remember, you asked for it!

OK, Jesus is on the Mount of Olives the night he was to be arrested and betrayed (of course we know that the Gospels disagree on which night of the week this was).  Jesus enlists his disciples to “pray, lest you enter into temptation” which is a provocative statement in its own context.  Jesus gets on His knees and prays, “Father, if it be Your will…” (anyone want to kick around the non-existence of the Trinity?).

Next comes an event, recorded only in the Third Gospel, in which Jesus is to have “bloody sweat.”  This account is in many early manuscripts, but more on that in a bit.  This thread has already explored the comparative “Like/As” and that needs no reinforcement here.  However, you asked you asked for a more thorough examination of the disputed passage.

When comparing ancient texts, especially when trying to figure out which manuscript is the purest manuscript, many attributes need to be considered.  Chief among them is “shortest wins the day.”  That is to say that the most conservative telling of a tale often enjoys a slight edge over the longer version.

Let’s make up an example that may clarify this point.  Let’s recite the Pledge of Allegiance.  “… one nation, under God, indivisible…”    is published and re-published and is an accepted phrase within this oath.  Perhaps an archivist looks in the Congressional Record and finds the earliest authorized account to date – yet this account has only the phrase “…one nation, indivisible…”  Hmm…

We have three options at this point:  1) “Under God” was added at some later time to assert some agenda, 2) There could perhaps be an undiscovered earliest account which contains “under God,” which leads to 3) Somebody forgot to write “under God” in this earliest account when copying it.  Like I said, in textual criticism option one holds the lead as the most likely explanation.

So, if you are still reading this, let’s get back to our topic…

When we look at this section of the Third Gospel, there are great and accepted manuscripts in which the majorities contain and some others omit the “sweaty blood” reference.  While the majority manuscripts speak loud, the manuscripts which do not contain the “sweaty blood” account are older and just as authentic.  The only thing we can reasonably state is that a corruption of the original text occurred – we just cannot be sure which the corrupted Scripture is.  We can tell when the corruption occurred, however.

If the verses in question were added later, it must have occurred in the middle of the second century (the “100’s” if you will).  We know this because the verses are attested by such early fathers as Justin, Irenaeus, and other Latin and Syriac writings.  If these verses are original, they would have been deleted in roughly the same time period.  These verses are not found in Clement and are missing from the Alexandrian manuscripts which are considered to be the writings of earlier traditions.

There is a considerable body of writings which debate the style and word choices of the disputed passage.  While they are elegant arguments, they are ultimately inconclusive.

So, from a literary criticism perspective, all we can conclude is that a corruption occurred.  We just cannot be precise in determining which the corruption is.  But there is a theological spin in action here which may prove interesting when considering why the corruption took place.

One writer disputes 43-4 in a contextual schema – the writer of the Third Gospel has gone to great lengths to present a condemned Jesus who is calm, in control, and confident of the Father’s Will.  Jesus is the strong, silent type right up to the end.  Now here’s where it gets interesting….

We know that Mark is the earliest written Gospel.  Many believe it is reasonable that Luke knew of Mark’s writing and used it as a source for his own Gospel.  Comparing Mark’s and Luke accounts of the Passion then becomes instructive.  Mark paints a very different picture of the condemned Jesus.  Luke, to produce this stalwart Jesus had to leave out big chunks of Mark’s account to keep Jesus’ stoicism intact – except for 22:43-44!  It is the only place in Luke where Jesus is in such visible agony.

A verse-by-verse comparison of Luke 22 and Mark 14 shows too many contrasts to go into here – look them up and see for yourself.  Mark has Jesus in agony and despair while Luke (except for 22:43-44) has a confident Jesus headed for a fulfillment of God’s Will. 

Nowhere is this more pronounced than the accounts of the crucifixion.  Mark’s walk to Golgotha is silent; the disciples have fled, and even the faithful women look on from a distance.  Jesus is mocked by the crowd – a man who is beaten, even forsaken by God Almighty!  Mark’s Christology, of course, gave reason for this.  Luke, in contrast has a Jesus who is far from silent.  Here is a Jesus who makes confident claims and pronouncements.  He tells women not to weep for Him – He knows what He must do.  On the cross, He remains calm and forgiving.  He does not cry out “Why have You left me behind?” to His God as He does in Mark; instead, He calls upon His Father to forgive His executioners for they don’t know what they’re doing.

Nowhere else in Luke’s two-volume series do we find any reference to Jesus’ agony -- only in these two disputed verses.  Although it doesn’t alter my theology at all, I am of the mind that those verses were added later.  Many Bible publishers agree and often make notations next to these verses.  This type of thing is usually a stumbling block for those who believe that the Bible is a flawless book.

The “why” question is pretty simple.  Second century Christians believed many different things about Jesus.  There were Docetists (actually there were two main Docetic camps), followers of Marcion, Ebionites, and on and on.  Each with a different Christology.  One of the loudest arguments was the Jesus as Phantasm vs. Jesus as Man debates.  The agony (that Jesus sweat blood, felt pain, was strengthened by angels, etc) was used to “prove” Jesus’ humanity.  That He was “fully human” as it were.  The polemic of “fully human/ fully divine” came much later and after much debate – a theological compromise which I feel is not supported by the Scriptures. 

Making Jesus fully human in the Gospels and possibly adding passages to support this was meant to quash the Docetic movements which were gaining a foothold in early communities.   Making Jesus Fully divine was John’s job.  Have you ever tried to make a decent argument for the divinity of Jesus without using the writings attributed to John?

Anyway, I hope that this lengthy reply is received in the spirit in which I write it – to edify the community of believers who want to know a bit more about our faith.  This was fun and got me reviewing things that I had not considered in a long time.  I hope it helps.

Whew!

Peace

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page