Featured In the Garden of Gethsemane

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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)

 

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?

 

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).

 

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).