By Pastor Kenny Burchard email me here
Luke 22:43-44
43 And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him. 44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground. (ESV)
This past Sunday at The Oasis Church, after I explained what I believe this text actually says, there were no less than six people who approached me to tell me that they always believed (and had always been taught) that on the night Jesus was betrayed, while he was praying in the garden of Gethsemane, he “sweat blood.” I have heard these verses taught that way in the past myself. Three other people told me that my idea (that Jesus did NOT sweat blood) had intrigued them, and that they would be looking into it more during the week.
Regardless of your conviction here, it seemed like something worth digging into a bit more via the blog so that you can see why I land where I land, and make up your own mind as you look into it yourself. Here are some things to think about.
Original Language
I don’t really want to bore you with a bunch of Greek, so… oh, never mind – let me bore you with some Greek! (Koine Greek, by the way, is the language that all the New Testament documents were originally written in). Here are all the words as they appear in v.44 in the Greek New Testament, along with my basic translation under each one:
|
καὶ |
ἐγένετο⸅ |
ὁ |
ἱδρὼς |
αὐτοῦ |
ὡσεὶ |
θρόμβοι |
αἵματος |
|
kai |
enegeto |
ho |
hydros |
autou |
hosei |
thromboi |
Aimatos |
|
and |
it became |
the |
sweat |
of him/his |
like |
drops |
of blood |
|
καταβαίνοντες |
ἐπὶ |
τὴν |
γῆν |
|
katabainontes |
epi |
teyn |
geyn |
|
falling |
upon |
the |
ground |
Hey! Hosei!
One of the keys to understanding what is happening in the text is the little word “hosei” (ὡσεὶ), which is the sixth word in the sentence. In my translation above, it’s the word “like.” So what do we do with this? Before I suggest an answer, let’s look at the word “hosei” in another text. Wait! What do you know? It actually appears a bit earlier in this exact chapter in the very story we’re reading now. Here it is (Lk. 22:41)…
|
καὶ |
αὐτὸς |
ἀπεσπάσθη |
ἀπʼ |
αὐτῶν |
ὡσεὶ |
λίθου |
Βολήν |
|
kai |
autos |
apespasthay |
ap |
autown |
hosei |
lithou |
Bolayn |
|
and |
he |
was withdrawn |
from |
them |
like |
a stone’s |
throw |
How far away from the disciples was Jesus praying? Well, it was “like” or “about like” or “seemed about” a stone’s throw away. In the earlier text, the word “hosei” indicates a comparison between two things: (1) The distance between Jesus and his disciples, and (2) the distance that the average person can throw a rock. Jesus was what “seemed like” or “about” or “kind of like” a stone’s throw away.
In the same way, when Luke wants us to know how profusely Jesus was sweating – especially with reference to how the sweat was pooling around him while he was kneeling, he tells us that it was “like big drops of blood hitting the ground.” That is very different from something like: “His sweat became actual blood falling to the ground” or “Jesus began to sweat blood, which fell to the ground,” or “his sweat turned to blood which fell to the ground.” No, Jesus is simply sweating so profusely and heavily that his sweat becomes thick and falls to the ground around him “like” blood when it also hits the ground.
It was, you know, like…
We use symbolic and idiomatic terminology all the time in English.
- It’s raining like Noah’s flood out there!
- He runs as fast as lightning.
- She was squealing like a stuck pig.
When we use idiomatic or symbolic language like this, no one thinks that Noah’s flood is actually happening all over again, or the running person has actually become lightning, or the screaming girl has turned into a pig, and can now make pig sounds. No, we’re using a comparison between two things (such as in the comparison between the distance between where Jesus is from his disciples, and throwing a stone). A has become LIKE B in some way. A has not BECOME B in every way. In Greek, this is called a comparative adverb. One thing is being compared with another.
The word “like/as” (ὡσεὶ) is actually used quite a bit in the New Testament. For instance:
Mark 3:16 – He saw the spirit of God descend ὡσεὶ a dove. But did the Holy Spirit become a dove? No! This is about the way in which the Holy Spirit came to rest upon Jesus. The Spirit of God is not a dove, and did not become one.
Mat. 9:26 – And after crying out and convulsing him terribly, it came out, and the boy was ὡσεὶ a corpse, so that most of them said, “He is dead.” Did the boy become a corpse and die? No! The way in which he appeared (after the deliverance from demons) was “as still as a corpse.” It’s a comparison, not a substantive transformation from one thing into another thing.
1 Thes. 5:2 – For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come ὡσεὶ a thief in the night. The day of the Lord will not become, or turn into an actual thief in the night. No! When the Lord comes it will be like a thief in that no one will expect it to happen when it happens. That’s it.
In the same way, Jesus’ sweat was not blood. No. It (the sweat) was falling to the ground “like big drops of blood fall to the ground.” This is not about what the sweat actually was. This is about what the sweat was “like.” More specifically, it was about how much sweat there was, and what was happening to the sweat as it fell from the body of Jesus. That’s it. No blood. Only “sweat like blood” and ONLY in the sense that it was falling to the ground the same way blood falls to the ground.
Lukan scholar and commentator Joel Green says this about the linguistic structure of Luke 22:44…
“The image Luke employs is of sweat dripping so profusely that it was like (ὡσεὶ) drops of blood, not that Jesus was actually “sweating blood. ” Luke’s portrait thus gives no basis for interpretations that focus on the blood of Jesus on the mount of olives.”[1] (p. 780)

If what was falling from Jesus was blood then it was not like blood. It was blood. But if it was “falling to the ground” like blood falls to the ground when someone is bleeding profusely, then what the verse says makes perfect sense. Jesus was sweating so profusely that the sweat was falling to the ground like blood falls to the ground when someone is bleeding. There was no blood. Not until the scourging of Jesus.
What’s the point of this look at the linguistic structure of Luke 22:44? The point is… ”MAN! Jesus was really sweating as he was praying!! That’s a LOT of sweat!”
But what about Hemohidrosis, Kenny!?? Huh? What about that?!
Listen, you can go online and google “Jesus sweat blood” and find all of the authors who cite Greek scholars and medical “evidence” (noting, of course, that Luke was a doctor) who will tell you that Jesus sweat blood because it is possible to sweat blood. You can find just as many bloggers and authors who disagree completely, and who tell you that Jesus didn’t sweat blood at all (also citing their scholars and sources just as carefully).
For me, the main issue is that the text simply doesn’t say that Jesus “sweat blood.” It says that his sweat was falling to the ground like blood falls to the ground. Yet, one Greek scholar who advocated (139 years ago, who seems to be the most quoted guy out there) the “Jesus sweat blood” position wrote:
“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 sentence, and make the insertion of haimatos not only superfluous but absurd.”[2]
Well, Mr. Alford (who lived in the late 1800s and who was probably not a blood-spatter analyst), actually it’s not absurd at all. When you’re comparing how one liquid profusely falling from a body compares to another liquid profusely falling from a body, it’s quite reasonable to compare blood to sweat.
No doubt, Luke’s readers would have seen profuse bleeding in their world, and would have known what that looked like, so the comparison is pretty sensible and would have been quite a powerful image of intense struggle.
You can also find authors and bloggers who will tell you that ὡσεὶ notes a “condition and not a comparison,” but that is just not true. In this sentence, ὡσεὶ is a comparative clause or adverb. That’s just what it is here. The more you look at the word ὡσεὶ when it is used like it is here in Luke, the more you will find over and over and over again that it is used to compare one thing to another in some way (not in every way) so as to create a word-picture that illustrates some point in the narrative (cf. Acts 6:15, Luke 10:18, Mat. 9:36, etc.).
As Louw and Nida put it in their Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament, the word indicates “…markers of a relationship between events or states.”[3] In other words, the word is used to compare various aspects of two different things, and to show what they have in common.
What did Jesus’ sweat have in common with blood? Well, it was coming out of his body profusely, and it was falling to the ground (<– click the link for an example) the way blood falls to the ground when it is coming out of the body profusely. That’s it. That’s all the text says; nothing more, nothing less.
So… Should we fight about it?
Now, if you decide to take my word for all this (and the word of guys like Joel Green, etc.), then you may feel like fighting with people about this if they use this text in a sermon or Bible study, noting how “Jesus sweat blood.” You may feel indignant and defensive, believing (as you may now believe) that Jesus didn’t sweat blood at all. But it’s not worth fighting about.
You may conclude, however, that you think I have it totally wrong, and you’ll want to fight with me about it. You may conclude that now you know that I don’t know anything about the Bible because, after all, look what I did with this verse!!
Here’s my suggestion no matter where you land. It is worth studying because we want to understand the Bible as best as we can. It is worth accepting the reality that there is idiomatic language in the Bible just like there is in our contemporary language. It is worthy becoming better at interpreting scripture, but at the end of the day, it’s not worth fighting about.
People who believe that Jesus sweat blood, and people who believe that Jesus’ sweat was as profuse as a massively bleeding person both believe in Jesus. Both see his prayer in the garden as an intense battle against temptation. Both believe that Jesus is Lord, and both believe that he died and rose again!
I bring interpretive issues to the surface because I want to teach the people who I pastor to slow down, be more circumspect, and read the Bible more carefully. The best students of scripture still find ways to see things differently in this or that area. That’s the challenge (and for me, the joy) of being life-long student of the Bible. I want to hear both (or all) sides of the issue, study the text myself, and carefully consider what seems like the best way to interpret. One is not a heretic or an enemy of the faith who does not land where I land (or where you land) on Luke 22:44.
Let’s keep following Jesus together, studying his word, talking about what we see, and even if we disagree about a verse here or there, let’s not disagree about one thing. Jesus is our King who loves us and gave himself up for us!
Peace,
Pastor Kenny
[1] Green, J. (1997) The Gospel of Luke, Eerdmans; Grand Rapids.
[2] Alford, Henry (1874), Alford’s Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1980 reprint).
[3] Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Vol. 1: Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition.) (617). New York: United Bible Societies.






How do I start one?




