R. C. H. Lenski on Luke 22:44 and Jesus Sweating Blood

  

44) The aorist participle γενομένος is punctiliar: Jesus reached the point where he was “in agony.” But “agony” should not be extended to mean “death agony” (dass er mit dem Tode rang, Luther), for Hobart shows that even the medics used ἀγωνία only with reference to severe mental distress. The fact that the entire struggle carried the body of Jesus close to dissolution is apparent from the start. We here have the reverse. The new strength that was imparted by the angel brought the agony of the struggle to its highest pitch. The mind and the body that were sinking lower and lower beneath the strain rallied powerfully to face the full horror of the curse and the wrath that were impending. That is why Jesus went on to pray more intensively in this supreme moment (the adjective does not mean “more” or mehrfach).

 

The intensity of the struggle produced such physical reaction that the sweat of Jesus became bloody. Severe mental distress and strain drive out sweat from the body, a fact that is constantly observed. The fact that this may reach the point where the tiny blood vessels of the skin are ruptured and permit blood to mingle with the sweat is attested medically. Aristotle speaks of bloody sweat as does Theophrastus, and in 1805 Gruner compiled medical data on the subject (R., W. P., and Nebe, Leidensgeschichte).

 

“As clots,” θρόμβοι, means that the blood mingled with the sweat and thickened the globules so that they fell to the ground in little clots and did not merely stain the skin. “How did the witnesses see this?” it is asked. It is enough to say that they saw it when Jesus returned to them. Why did Mark not record this when he had Peter as his authority, who was one of the three? That is a question one might ask about a hundred things regarding each of the Gospel writers. We cannot state with definiteness just why each writer included this and not that. (R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Luke’s Gospel [Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961], 1076-77)

 

Dylan Schrader's Lame Attempt to Support the Dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and Bodily Assumption

Overall, Dylan Schrader, Mary, Mother of God’s Word Made Flesh (2026) is a good book for those curious about Roman Catholic Mariology. There is even a good discussion of the Debitum Peccati, which is often overlooked in Mariological treatises today. However, as with many Roman Catholics, his defense of Marian dogmas as being apostolic in origin is a stretch. Consider the following (and note, according to Rome, the substance of these dogmas were part of the deposit of faith that stopped being added to at the end of the first century, and if you knowingly reject any, you are guilty of mortal sin):

 

On the Immaculate Conception:

 

The development of the dogma of the immaculate conception owes a great deal to the Church’s piety, particularly the liturgical feast of Mary’s conception, as Pius IX makes clear in Ineffabilis Deus. But the Church’s acceptance of such piety is itself an argument for the apostolic character of the doctrine. If the Church had recognized the veneration of Mary immaculate as foreign to her faith, the widespread embrace of such piety would have been impossible. (Dylan Schrader, Mary, Mother of God’s Word Made Flesh [Sacra Doctrina; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2026], 71-72)

 

On the Bodily Assumption:

 

The apostolic Church’s silence—at least in terms of what has survived to the present day—on the matter also does not count against the assumption. In fact, this silence is really an attestation to the assumption. No one boasted of having the relics of Mary’s body, a fact that points to their unavailability. Nor does the early Church lament a lack of relics as if Mary’s bones had been lost, destroyed, or stolen. (Dylan Schrader, Mary, Mother of God’s Word Made Flesh [Sacra Doctrina; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2026], 219)

 

Early Protestant Use of Hebrews 5:4 to Support the Priesthood of All Believers

Heb 5:4 is a common proof-text used by Latter-day Saints and others (e.g., John Fisher [d. 1535] used it to support the Roman Catholic priesthood against Martin Luther). Interestingly, this text has been used as a proof-text for the priesthood of all believers (and often, as a corollary to such, an exclusion of a New Covenant priesthood independent of the so-called priesthood of all believers). Consider the following from Wolfgang Musculus (1497-1563):

 

For how should we Christians come to recognise as right such a priesthood and priestly dignity which has no institution or calling from God?

 

It is written in Hebrews 5 that no one should attribute priestly dignity to himself. As also Christ did not set himself in the honour of becoming high priest, but he who said to him: “You are my Son,” etc.

 

The priesthood of Aaron did not come from human invention but from the institution and calling of God; otherwise, it would have been null, indeed idolatrous. So also Christ did not have to become high priest from his own intention, but from the calling of the Father. How then should a priesthood in the New Testament be valid, which comes, without any testimony of God’s will, from human good pleasure and own choice?

 

Well then, let us see how the Lord has provided his church with ministers and necessary offices, whether we shall find among them also these sacrifice-priests and mediators between him and men.

 

[Musculus then presents, to this day, the standard proof-texts, for the Priesthood of All Believers] (Wolfgang Musculus, “Against the Papist Mass,” sermon delivered at the Imperial Diet in Regensburg, June 1, 1541)

 

Here are other representative Reformation commentaries on Heb 5:4:

 

Ministers in the New Covenant. Lucas Osiander: And although today in the new covenant there are no such ministers in the church who should sacrifice as in the old, nevertheless it is pleasing to God that the ministers are human beings, not angels, so that, mindful of human infirmities, they might conduct themselves commodiously toward sinners and bring them back into the way and not cast off the penitent. Neither should anyone betake to themselves to sit in the ecclesial ministry, but they should take up that function through a legitimate vocation. Epistle to the Hebrews 5:4.

 

No One Should Seek Priestly Office out of Ambition. Johannes Oecolampadius: Heed this, you who wish to live a godly life. For currying favor for the sake of ambition or for any kind of official status is not void of offense. See how this passage fits together with that found in 1 Timothy 3, “If anyone aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task.” It is not the place of a Christian to look out for their own interests, but to desire to benefit others; this truly is exactly the role of a Christian. Now, there is no better way by which you can benefit others than performing the office of a bishop, seeing as it confers the highest usefulness to humanity; therefore it is honorable to aspire to it, but only for someone who perceives himself to be sufficient for the task. For people like this more capably look out for the work and the interests of Christ than for recognition, success, and their own interests. To desire the episcopal office is to undertake the examination and care of everyone, not himself; but he will never achieve this unless he is endowed with great love. We must so desire to benefit our neighbors that all ambition and pride is banished, so that we do not run without having been called. For the priesthood is such an important office that it is necessary that a person be called by God, just as Aaron was called. In Numbers 17, when Aaron’s staff blossomed, it was as a clear proof that Aaron had been selected by God as a priest. Obviously the apostles of the Anabaptists, who assume apostleship because they are called by themselves, failed to consider this passage. For they cannot provide any reason sufficiently compatible with Scripture for their behavior, to which they must be incited by their hollow wisdom and inquisitiveness. But in olden times priests were ordained from the tribe of Levi and the family of Aaron, which we read endured until the time of Herod and Hyrcanus. If you wish to know about the settlement by which the priesthood ceased among the Hebrews, and all the worst people were promoted to that dignity by Herod, you may consult Josephus, Antiquities book 20. Explanations of Hebrews 5:4–6. (Hebrews, James: New Testament, ed. Ronald K. Rittgers and Timothy George [Reformation Commentary on Scripture 13; Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2017], 69-70)

 

Luke Johnson (1858) Recording Joseph Smith's Healing of His Mothers Chronic Rheumatism

  

My grandfather, Israel Johnson, lived in Chesterfield, New Hampshire; and was much respected by his neighbors for his honesty, integrity and industry.

 

My father, John Johnson, was born in Chesterfield, New Hampshire, April 11, 1779. He followed the occupation of farming on a large scale, and was noted for paying his debts and living independently. He moved from Pomfret, Vermont, to Iram, Portage Co., Ohio. He was connected with the Methodist Church for about four or five years previous to receiving the gospel.

 

Soon after Joseph Smith moved from the state of New York, my father, mother, and Ezra Booth, a Methodist minister, went to Kirtland, to investigate Mormonism. My mother had been laboring under an attack of chronic rheumatism in the shoulder, so that she could not raise her hand to her head, for about two years; the Prophet laid hands upon her, and she was healed immediately.

 

My father was satisfied in regard to the truth of Mormonism, and was baptized by Joseph Smith, jun., in the winter of 1830-1, and furnished him and his family a home, while he translated a portion of the Bible. (Luke Johnson, “History of Luke Johnson,” Deseret News 8, no. 11 [May 19, 1858]: 1)

 

This is the earliest account of the healing I have so far encountered. It was also reported by a Campbellite minister (and one who was pretty much anti-LDS) in a funeral sermon from August 1870, republished in a 1875 book on the history of the Campbellite movement (see Joseph Smith Performing a Miraculous Healing According to a Non-LDS Source). if anyone knows any earlier source(s), let me know via email at ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com.

Robert Alter on Isaiah 25:5

  

The chant of the cruel ones He answered. The received text is enigmatic here. Attempts to render the concluding verb as “has silenced” are questionable: yaʿaneh as it stands means “answer,” and a revocalization as yeʿaneh doesn’t work because that verb means “afflict,” not “silence,” and also requires a human object. Perhaps the “chant” is a battle chant, or a triumphal song. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 2:699)

 

Robert Alter on Isaiah 37:27

  

your din. The received text has shaʾ anenekha, “your complacent one,” for which this translation reads, with several ancient versions, sheʾ onkha, “your din.” (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 2:742)

 

Robert Alter and Donald W. Parry on Isaiah 33:8

  

spurned the witnesses. The Masoretic Text reads “spurned the cities [ʿarim],” but cities would be an odd object for the verb “spurned.” The Qumran Isaiah reads ʿedim, “witnesses,” and the translation adopts that reading. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 2:728)

 

 

[scholars] rightly argue on behalf of the reading of 1QIsaa because it both strengthens the parallelistic structure and is suitable in the passage’s context; e.g., “witnesses” or “contracts” serves as a better parallel to “covenant” than does “cities.” So, too, multiple translations— NEB, NIV, NRSV, RSV—accept the scroll’s reading (but contrast JPS). (Donald W. Parry, Exploring the Isaiah Scrolls and Their Textual Variants [Supplements to the Textual History of the Bible 3; Leiden: Brill, 2020], 230)