In the Garden of Gethsemane

[Yeshua1]

I interpret this passage quite differently than the traditional view that He was asking here not to die on the cross. Note the following facts:

1. The bloody sweat indicated extreme stress, a condition called hematidrosis, as I've already pointed out. It is possible to actually die from this. The cup of death Jesus was asking for was not to die there in the Garden, where Satan was trying to kill Him.

2. Most importantly, if Jesus did not go to the cross to die, He would become a false prophet. He had prophesied several times that He would die on the cross. Here is such a prophecy in Matthew 20:18-29. "Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again."

3. According to Heb. 5:7, when He prayed not to die (which could only have occurred in the Garden of Gethsemane), His prayer was answered. "Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared." Therefore, in the Garden He could not have been praying not to die on the cross.

Interesting! I always look, due to him bearing pur sins!ed at this as Jesus now facing up to being forsaken by God

 

[37818]

Actually, Dr. Luke was describing a genuine physical condition called hematidrosis, . . .

That is supposed. If he had I would be fine with that, but the text, as I honestly understand it, he neither says Jesus sweat blood nor that biood was in Jesus' sweat.

 

[37818]

How many of the 98.7% mark the verses with an asterisk or obelisk? How many "versional witnesses" are missing the verses?

A literally authentic text was part of the inspired text, a historically authentic text accurately provides an account not included in the inspired text. Thus the brackets, flagging the text as questionable.

0.9% omit verses 43-44 in manuscripts of Luke 22.

A few of the oldest manuscripts of John's gospel have some punctuation mark in common were John 7:53-John 8:1-11 are vacant/omited.

 

[Van]

How do we know what was in the inspired text? BTW my ? in post 34 I believe is relative to whether or not 43,44 would be in the inspired text.

In this prayer of the Son of God unto the Father was the Son striving against sin? Was he under temptation of being obedient unto death even the death of the cross?

and in fashion having been found as a man, he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death -- death even of a cross, Phil 2:8
through being Son, did learn by the things which he suffered -- the obedience, Heb 5:8

Was the Son of God striving against sin?

I think we should not consider the verses as questionable. However, on a much more important topic, we should understand the lesson presented to us by this garden prayer account. After His prayer, His mindset is revealed in John, "would you not have Me drink this cup?" He was not reluctant or grudging, He was fully committed to the task He was born for. Amen, and Glory to our God and Savior. (John 18:11)

 

[percho]

I interpret this passage quite differently than the traditional view that He was asking here not to die on the cross. Note the following facts:

1. The bloody sweat indicated extreme stress, a condition called hematidrosis, as I've already pointed out. It is possible to actually die from this. The cup of death Jesus was asking for was not to die there in the Garden, where Satan was trying to kill Him.

2. Most importantly, if Jesus did not go to the cross to die, He would become a false prophet. He had prophesied several times that He would die on the cross. Here is such a prophecy in Matthew 20:18-29. "Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again."

3. According to Heb. 5:7, when He prayed not to die (which could only have occurred in the Garden of Gethsemane), His prayer was answered. "Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared." Therefore, in the Garden He could not have been praying not to die on the cross.

In H 5:7 was he praying not to die or was he praying to be saved from death? To be saved out of death?

 

[John of Japan]

That is supposed. If he had I would be fine with that, but the text, as I honestly understand it, he neither says Jesus sweat blood nor that biood was in Jesus' sweat.

Remember that Luke was a doctor. He was using medical terminology. Even the ancients knew this condition. Here again is what A. T. Robertson wrote about the Luke used, thromboi (the plural): "Thick, clotted blood. An old word (thromboi) common in medical works, but here only in the N.T.... Aristotle speaks of a bloody sweat as does Theophrastus."

The authoritative BAGD lexicon says that the word is a medical term and means "small amount of (flowing) blood, clot of blood" (p. 364). My reference books give no indication of a usage where actual blood was not present. The hematidrosis condition is a genuine condition caused by extreme stress, and known by both ancient and modern medical writers. It seems obvious that this is what is being dealt with in the passage. Why is that hard for you to accept?

The normal word for blood is haima, occurring in 93 verses in the NT, including many times by Luke and also in this verse in the genitive, "of blood." If the human author, Dr. Luke, had only meant that the sweat looked like drops of blood, why would he use this medical term thrombos? Again, how can a clear liquid (sweat, water) look like blood? That doesn't make sense.

The venerable Henry Alford's The Greek NT says, "...coloured with blood, for so I understand the hosei, as just distinguishing the drops highly coloured with blood, from pure blood." Then he quotes Aristotle using this term. Then he says, "To suppose that it only fell like drops of blood (why not drops of any thing else? and drops of blood from what, and where?) is to nullify the force of the sentences, and make the insertion of haimatos not only superfluous but absurd" (Vol. 1, p. 583).

 

[John of Japan]

In H 5:7 was he praying not to die or was he praying to be saved from death? To be saved out of death?

I don't see how it would make a difference in the exegesis. At any rate, the preposition ek can be interpreted either way, but three other times in the KJV the same phrase is also translated "from death" (John 5:24, James 5:20, and 1 John 3:14).