The Blood of Jesus

[PreachTony]

Recently I was involved in a discussion with a fellow BB member in which I was told that the only time Jesus bled was in the Garden of Gethsemane. He claimed that Jesus's physical body was not even marred by the scourging and crucifixion, which is in direct opposition to Isaiah 52:14 "his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men." The original comment on this issue was that the Bible explicitly states Jesus bled in the Garden during His prayer, and in no other place does the Bible say Jesus bled.

The argument for this comes from the following verse:

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.

I disagree with this basis for an argument, as the scripture says "and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood," not "and his sweat was great drops of blood." But I countered the argument with the fact that Jesus was very much human, while being divine, and any human body subjected to a Roman scourging and crucifixion would bleed profusely. The scripture even tells us that Jesus was beaten by the soldiers, a crown of thorns was placed on His head, He was whipped (fulfilling the prophecy that 'by his stripes we are healed'), He was smote with rods, His beard was plucked out, and finally nails were driven into His hands and feet and a spear was driven into his side. To say that a human body could be subjected to all of those things and not bleed, simply because the scripture does not explicitly state that He bled, is bothersome.

As I began to study this doctrine, I found it seemingly based mostly in Mormonism. Apparently, Mormon doctrine holds that Jesus's work of atonement was mainly accomplished in the Garden, where during His prayer He "bled from every pore of His body."

The idea that Jesus “bled from every pore” is mentioned in a couple of places in LDS scripture:

“And lo, he shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death; for behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people” (Mosiah 3:7).

“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” (Doctrine and Covenants 19:18).

Per the link:

Near the end of His earthly ministry, the Savior went with His disciples to the Mount of Olives, to the Garden of Gethsemane…. It was there that the Savior paid the price for all the sorrows, sins, and transgressions of every human being who ever lived or ever will live. There He drank the bitter cup and suffered so that all who repent may not suffer.

and

The sectarian world falsely suppose that the climax of his torture and suffering was on the cross (Matt. 27:26-50; Mark 15:1-38; Luke 23:1-46; John 18; 19:1-18)—a view which they keep ever before them by the constant use of the cross as a religious symbol. The fact is that intense and severe as the suffering was on the cross, yet the great pains were endured in the Garden of Gethsemane.

Now, I've always taken the prayer in the Garden to be an exposition to us of the very human side of our Savior, as He revealed the natural, physical fear and anxiety of facing the trials coming His way: the arrest, the scourging, the crucifixion. It also revealed to us the inherent weakness of men following the Lord, as the disciples who joined Jesus in the Garden could not even stay awake with the Savior as He prayed in advance of His passion.

I believe the gospels bear this out. No where else in scripture does it say that our atonement came from the Garden. In Mark 10:21, Jesus told the rich young man to "take up the cross," not to "join me in the Garden." In Galatians 2:20, Paul writes "I am crucified with Christ," not "I am in the Garden praying with Christ."

Has anyone else ever encountered this doctrine? It completely took me by surprise. (Granted, the person touting this doctrine went on to spout off some other doctrines that frankly horrified me.)

 

[plain_n_simple]

"Has anyone else ever encountered this doctrine? It completely took me by surprise. (Granted, the person touting this doctrine went on to spout off some other doctrines that frankly horrified me.)"

Never. I also recently discovered a "Paul's Letters Only" doctrine, they reject all the bible except Paul. The guy even accused Luke and Peter of being liars.

 

[InTheLight]

Recently I was involved in a discussion with a fellow BB member in which I was told that the only time Jesus bled was in the Garden of Gethsemane. He claimed that Jesus's physical body was not even marred by the scourging and crucifixion,

John 19:32 Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who was crucified with Him. 33 But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs. 34 But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out.

The original comment on this issue was that the Bible explicitly states Jesus bled in the Garden during His prayer, and in no other place does the Bible say Jesus bled.

The argument for this comes from the following verse:

44 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.

I disagree with this basis for an argument, as the scripture says "and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood," not "and his sweat was great drops of blood."

That verse is not found in the earliest manuscripts.

My dad used to have a big problem when preachers would say that Jesus "sweated blood" during this prayer, citing the phrase (as you did) "was as it were..."

I guess I'm not sure what the Bible is saying here. If Jesus was not literally dripping blood, why even make the comparison? OTOH, why does it say "was as it were"?

 

[PreachTony]

John 19:32 Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who was crucified with Him. 33 But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs. 34 But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out.

I quoted that verse and was told that it meant something that looked like blood and water, but wasn't either, came out. It was basically the reverse version of the point you make here, ITL.

That verse is not found in the earliest manuscripts.

My dad used to have a big problem when preachers would say that Jesus "sweated blood" during this prayer, citing the phrase (as you did) "was as it were..."

I guess I'm not sure what the Bible is saying here. If Jesus was not literally dripping blood, why even make the comparison? OTOH, why does it say "was as it were"?

I've never been one to say He sweat blood in the Garden. I pretty much hold to the point you've made here. There's a reason the Bible says "as it were."

 

[BobRyan]

While it is true that superhuman agony - suffering to pay the price for the sins of the world took place in Gethsemane it also continued to the point of death on the cross and nobody at the trial or anywhere else remarks that they were not seeing bleeding.

No text says there was no bleeding rather the report of the incident is as if nothing remarkable at all is going on other than the fact that Jesus refuses to complain. His lack of complaint and the fact that He died so soon after crucifixion were the only things that they remark about during the trial as if it were not normal.

When He is brought before Herod and Pilate both of them ask for a sign or some sort of help to guide them - but Christ offers them nothing. When asked to heal by Herod to prove through some supernatural sign that He was of divine origin - he does nothing. Even though he healed the servants ear in the garden he goes out of his way to show no unusual sign of any kind during the trial.

If scourging and crucifixion were not producing any blood even his enemies would have been talking about it.

If you want to read about the account in a large amount of detail -- then ..http://www.whiteestate.org/books/da/da74.html
Start reading there --

in Christ,

Bob

 

[OldRegular]

Jesus Christ bled. He was fully human and without doubt he bled some time before he went to the cross.

He bled when he was whipped. He bled when the crown of thorns was pushed on His head.

Most importantly he bled while on the cross.

Hebrews 9:22. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

 

[RLBosley]

Recently I was involved in a discussion with a fellow BB member in which I was told that the only time Jesus bled was in the Garden of Gethsemane. He claimed that Jesus's physical body was not even marred by the scourging and crucifixion, which is in direct opposition to Isaiah 52:14 "his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men." The original comment on this issue was that the Bible explicitly states Jesus bled in the Garden during His prayer, and in no other place does the Bible say Jesus bled.

That's absurd. Heretical even.

Now, I've always taken the prayer in the Garden to be an exposition to us of the very human side of our Savior, as He revealed the natural, physical fear and anxiety of facing the trials coming His way: the arrest, the scourging, the crucifixion.

I disagree that Christ's fear and anxiety are caused by the coming beating or the crucifixion. Many believers have suffered equally harsh, if not worse, torture and went to their crosses or stakes to be burned while singing and praising God. I can't believe that the Lord himself was fearful of something that many of his followers embraced almost joyfully. He was fearful and anxious over suffering his Father's anger and wrath against sin - something he had never known before.

Has anyone else ever encountered this doctrine? It completely took me by surprise. (Granted, the person touting this doctrine went on to spout off some other doctrines that frankly horrified me.)

Never heard of it in my life. Then again it seems as if new (or rehashed) heresies crop up almost every day.

 

[BobRyan]

"Has anyone else ever encountered this doctrine? It completely took me by surprise. (Granted, the person touting this doctrine went on to spout off some other doctrines that frankly horrified me.)"

Never. I also recently discovered a "Paul's Letters Only" doctrine, they reject all the bible except Paul. The guy even accused Luke and Peter of being liars.

Are these just "10 guys in a room making stuff up" or is it some actual denomination?

 

[plain_n_simple]

Are these just "10 guys in a room making stuff up" or is it some actual denomination?

It started in a chat room, the owner being Paul Only. I did a search and indeed it is growing but it isn't that big yet to be called a denomination or even an organization as yet.

 

[Walter]

Are these just "10 guys in a room making stuff up" or is it some actual denomination?

The BB poster (Gerhard Ebersoehn) who put forth this doctrine claims 'that the Lord has shown me in great and marvelous ways' and will not identify what denomination or sect he/she is a part of. I have asked him/her on many occasions and have been ignored. The closest this poster gets to identify with any sect or denomination is the listing on the 'about me' link. It says under denomination 'reformed'. Also, under 'Home Church' Gerhard lists a city in South Africa and no specific church. The interest listed is 'Theology of the Sabbath'. If you check out the links he/she has listed you will see some 'bible institute' which it seems from the discussion led by 'GE' that Gerhard is it's founder/leader. Their are many bizzare doctrines being espoused by the site. Teachings of which Gerhard has started threads on BB such as 'Bone Day' and 'All Sunday Resurrectionists' are on the lists of teachings. Most of the threads Gerhard has started on BB don't get much attention. I suspect that is because the posts by Gerhard are very hard to understand. In the blog section you will see discussions on teachings of certain SDA theologians but this sect/denomination is at odds with the mainline SDA church.

This-among other things-leads me to believe this is just another spin off the SDA. There are many. Some very small and very heretical. Some (like David Koresh and The Branch Davidians) are very heretical and dangerous.

http://www.biblestudents.co.za/

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Recently I was involved in a discussion with a fellow BB member in which I was told that the only time Jesus bled was in the Garden of Gethsemane. He claimed that Jesus's physical body was not even marred by the scourging and crucifixion, which is in direct opposition to Isaiah 52:14 "his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men." The original comment on this issue was that the Bible explicitly states Jesus bled in the Garden during His prayer, and in no other place does the Bible say Jesus bled.

<<<He claimed that Jesus's physical body was not even marred>>>


Quote, please?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I disagree with this basis for an argument, as the scripture says "and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood," not "and his sweat was great drops of blood." But I countered the argument with the fact that Jesus was very much human, while being divine, and any human body subjected to a Roman scourging and crucifixion would bleed profusely.

<<<the fact that Jesus was very much human, while being divine, and any human body>>>

<<the fact>>, is not completely explained and therefore what further has not been explained but should have been explained—Jesus’ sinlessness—, renders <the fact>, no fact but subterfuge.

“For since by (the first) man came death…” because he <<<was very much human>>>?

God then made man to let him die?
God forbid!
No!
“For since man : SINNED : death came by man”!

“But now: Christ ROSE from the dead”—“HAD to rise from the dead SINCE / BECAUSE”… <<<he was very much human>>>?

No! “SINCE / BECAUSE”… He was very much / absolutely THE SINLESS, THE UNBLEMISHED, THE PERFECT, THE SPOTLESS : THE DIVINE : GOD : the Lamb of God, Jesus ROSE from the dead and death the wages of SIN. “FOR HE KNEW NO SIN!”.

“But now Christ is risen from the dead since through DEATH, He very much OVERCAME death! Death marred Him not; He was marred—formed and fashioned and tried in the furnace of God’s Altar. “I have created the Waster to destroy … I have created the Smith that bloweth the coals in the fire and bringeth forth an Instrument for his work; No weapon that is formed against Thee shall prosper and every tongue against Thee in judgment Thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the Servant of the LORD, in His Righteousness OF ME, SAITH THE LORD” and Father of the Son of God IN HIS SUFFERING LIKE NOWHERE ELSE.

Because (“since”) He was THE SINLESS, THE UNBLEMISHED, THE PERFECT, THE SPOTLESS : THE DIVINE : GOD : the Lamb of God, He was marred, viz., formed and fashioned and tried in the fire of his suffering of his dying the death of all sinners, not that man would adore Him, but that man would despise Him. He was marred so that God exulted in Him; not that men would exalt Him.
So perfectly <<very much human>> as Jesus was, so DIVINE GOD was He.

You see, the problem again with your reasoning is that you make of GOD’S work —Jesus’ having been marred by the pains of death—, the work of wicked men; that you make GOD’S GLORY —Christ in his Suffering—, “the power of darkness”.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I disagree with this basis for an argument, as the scripture says "and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood," not "and his sweat was great drops of blood."

But where it says "there came out / sagged down / bulged out" - 'eksehlthen'—not 'flowed' like living blood would have ‘flowed’ or sweat would have ‘streamed’—, you say his blood flowed.

And where it says "blood-AND-water came out" in DEAD clout and DEAD watery substance, there you insist it was living, running BLOOD and no water!

Now this, <<<his sweat was as it were great drops of blood>>> is not the text or what it means.
There is no Subjunctive or Conjunctive. The Verb is Indicative, Active. The Subject, “his sweat and blood, became like [‘hohsei’] drops which fell to the ground.”

Here where it is Jesus who while living is bleeding and whose blood is flowing from his real life experience in Divine Agony of “our Passover”, there, you deny it was his life’s blood, and say it was just sweat, the sign of weakness and exhaustion as of a weakling and sinner, and not Jesus, “WHFFERED UP HIMSELF, SACRIFICE” of the Passover of Yahweh.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

So yes,

<<<any human body subjected to a Roman scourging and crucifixion would bleed profusely.>>>

Jesus' body was not <<any human body>>. His body and flesh and whole Being was also God.

And Jesus' body was not <<any human body>>. His was a SINLESS body, and therefore "did not see corruption" even in death or in the suffering of to die the death of sinners.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

<<<The scripture even tells us that Jesus was beaten by the soldiers, a crown of thorns was placed on His head, He was whipped (fulfilling the prophecy that 'by his stripes we are healed'), He was smote with rods, His beard was plucked out, and finally nails were driven into His hands and feet and a spear was driven into his side. To say that a human body could be subjected to all of those things and not bleed, simply because the scripture does not explicitly state that He bled, is bothersome.>>>


<<<… and finally nails were driven into His hands and feet and a spear was driven into his side.>>>

<<nails were driven into His hands>> before Jesus was on the cross, lifted up high. Why, but as I said before, for the lust after blood? Received any for that blood, atonement for sins? Found any peace by extracting blood from a carcase? But they shall look up to Him whose side they pierced when TOO LATE for reconciliation.

<<<a spear was driven into his side>>> after Jesus had died on the cross --- 3 to 5 hours after. Blood – even were it blood – shod without being shed --- is that the blood of the Servant of the LORD or of one who not as much as passively could make atonement for sin?


<<To say that a human body could be subjected to all of those things and not bleed, simply because the scripture does not explicitly state that He bled, is bothersome.>>>

Jesus’ was no ordinary <<human body>>!

However <bothersome> to some it may be that Jesus did not bleed while he was subjected to all of those things>>, He did not bleed.
One, because <<the scripture does not explicitly state that He bled>>;
Two, because there is all the rest of the Scriptures like the Psalms, e.g., Psalms 17 and 18 which clearly show that his human body while <<subjected to all those things>>, would not bleed;
Three, According to Scriptures Jesus would not and did not bleed or had his being in any wise hurt or soiled—“corrupted”—, because it had to be according to his sinless Divine nature as well as merit and deserving.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

As I began to study this doctrine, I found it seemingly based mostly in Mormonism.

I, Gerhard Ebersoehn, have never before the current discussion in BB on <<this doctrine>> heard or read a single sentence of <<Mormonism>> and do not care to hear or read, EVER!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Now, I've always taken the prayer in the Garden to be an exposition to us of the very human side of our Savior, as He revealed the natural, physical fear and anxiety of facing the trials coming His way: the arrest, the scourging, the crucifixion. It also revealed to us the inherent weakness of men following the Lord, as the disciples who joined Jesus in the Garden could not even stay awake with the Savior as He prayed in advance of His passion.

I believe the gospels bear this out. No where else in scripture does it say that our atonement came from the Garden. In Mark 10:21, Jesus told the rich young man to "take up the cross," not to "join me in the Garden." In Galatians 2:20, Paul writes "I am crucified with Christ," not "I am in the Garden praying with Christ."

Has anyone else ever encountered this doctrine? It completely took me by surprise. (Granted, the person touting this doctrine went on to spout off some other doctrines that frankly horrified me.)

Tell us more about yourself; it may take our attention off those horrifying stuff --- so horrifying Jesus announced its advance and assault with the BATTLE CRY,
"THIS IS THE POWER OF DARKNESS! THIS IS YOUR HOUR!” [“hour” of judgment of the wicked men OF THE CHURCH, verse 52].

It took me, <<by surprise>> as it could not anyone else, more.

It confirmed to me that Christ SUFFERED and was TRIED because He was “more than Conqueror”, and able to help in all things them that wait upon the Lord. “For we have not a High Priest who cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities but was in all points in every respect tried and tested, yet without sin”— He conquered the tempter, and put evil men in their place. “Fear and dread shall fall upon them: BY THE GREATNESS OF THINE ARM they shall be as still as a stone.”

 

[BobRyan]

In the blog section you will see discussions on teachings of certain SDA theologians but this sect/denomination is at odds with the mainline SDA church.

This-among other things-leads me to believe this is just another spin off the SDA. There are many. Some very small and very heretical. Some (like David Koresh and The Branch Davidians) are very heretical and dangerous.

http://www.biblestudents.co.za/

G.E. states very often his hatred for the Seventh-day Adventist church - and frankly as an actual SDA myself - I recognize very little of G.E.'s teaching as anything I have heard of before.

 

[PreachTony]

Quote, please?

Well, considering the thread was closed after you made one of the most horrifying and frankly heretical statements I've ever read on this forum, I cannot quote it with links. However, I will do a copy-and-paste of your words, Gerhard.

Jesus HAD the appearance he had BEFORE and DESPITE anyone so much as laid a hand on Him. It was because of Jesus’ “visage” he HAD, that He to the sons of men was appearing so shameful. So ashaming was He to them—so insulting and offensive—that they scourged Him to make Him look like one of them. But they could not—they were unable to—they had not the power to. Which is what drove them all mad with fury from that they had taken hold on Him in the garden of the olive press. But He was harder than the olive pit under their pressure. He was the Rock—the Rock to some the Stone of Stumbling; to few the Rock of their salvation. Nontheless, in that night and day of death’s bone, “He was despised and rejected of men”—of all, men. Because they saw themselves in Him on judgment day. Because “they saw that which had not been told them (before); and because they had seen from near that which they (before) had not heard.

<<So, Jesus was spotlessly clean, and the whips left no marks?>>>

Yes. That is how it stand written; and that is how Jesus triumphed; and you can see it in the whole of all his trials --- the DESPERATION of the 'judges' and 'executioners'.

<<<He never had any blood or dirt on Him during the scourging and crucifixion, but people just thought He did?>>>

No. He never had any blood or dirt on Him during the scourging and crucifixion, but people thought and wished and tried very hard to get <blood or dirt on Him during the scourging and crucifixion>. But they failed.
Again, that is how it stands, written.

<<<How, exactly, would a Roman scourging make Jesus look like the common people?>>>

Like they looked like inside. They WANTED Him to look like themselves in their hearts. Again, they failed. That is how it stands, written. No success. They could not even kill Him; He had to lay down his life by the Power He only, had as God-in-Man, the Son of God, Jesus the Christ of God.

<<<A scourging was designed to punish and harm. It was a very bloody affair. It was extremely painful. To say anything else is to deny the sufferings of Christ for us.>>>

It is true for anyone except the Son of Man the Son of God, Jesus, the King of the Jews as well as of the Kingdom of God’s dear Son, the Kingdom of Light, the Kingdom of Heaven. To say anything else is to deny the sufferings of Christ for us. Yes! To say anything else is to deny Christ’s TRIUMPH over “the last enemy, DEATH”: his DEATH-FOR-US, not like us.]<<So, Jesus was spotlessly clean, and the whips left no marks?>>>

Yes. That is how it stand written; and that is how Jesus triumphed; and you can see it in the whole of all his trials --- the DESPERATION of the 'judges' and 'executioners'.

<<<He never had any blood or dirt on Him during the scourging and crucifixion, but people just thought He did?>>>

No. He never had any blood or dirt on Him during the scourging and crucifixion, but people thought and wished and tried very hard to get <blood or dirt on Him during the scourging and crucifixion>. But they failed.
Again, that is how it stands, written.

<<<How, exactly, would a Roman scourging make Jesus look like the common people?>>>

Like they looked like inside. They WANTED Him to look like themselves in their hearts. Again, they failed. That is how it stands, written. No success. They could not even kill Him; He had to lay down his life by the Power He only, had as God-in-Man, the Son of God, Jesus the Christ of God.

<<<A scourging was designed to punish and harm. It was a very bloody affair. It was extremely painful. To say anything else is to deny the sufferings of Christ for us.>>>

It is true for anyone except the Son of Man the Son of God, Jesus, the King of the Jews as well as of the Kingdom of God’s dear Son, the Kingdom of Light, the Kingdom of Heaven. To say anything else is to deny the sufferings of Christ for us. Yes! To say anything else is to deny Christ’s TRIUMPH over “the last enemy, DEATH”: his DEATH-FOR-US, not like us.

When Jesus DID bleed, it IS written. When Jesus did NOT bleed, it also is NOT written.

<<<Almost every branch of Christianity admits that Jesus bled in large quantities during the scourging and crucifixion.>>>
That is true. It does not make it Truth. Jesus only bled in the garden. That is written. That, is Divine.

And I'm linking to the thread here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=97571&page=5
Look at Post #48 for the reason the thread was closed. As I wrote earlier, it is one of the most horrifying and heretical things I've read on this board.

 

[convicted1]

Well, considering the thread was closed after you made one of the most horrifying and frankly heretical statements I've ever read on this forum, I cannot quote it with links. However, I will do a copy-and-paste of your words, Gerhard.








And I'm linking to the thread here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=97571&page=5
Look at Post #48 for the reason the thread was closed. As I wrote earlier, it is one of the most horrifying and heretical things I've read on this board.

To post 48.....