An Exegetical Analysis of Luke 22:44 and the Interpretation of ὡσεὶ θρόμβοι αἵματος
This exegetical study of An Exegetical Analysis of Luke 22:44 and the Interpretation of ὡσεὶ θρόμβοι αἵματος is based on a b-greek discussion from Wed Mar 23 17:49:18 EDT 2011. The initial query concerned the common understanding of Luke 22:44 as describing “bloody sweat,” questioning whether the Greek particle ὡσεὶ implies a literal transformation of sweat into blood or merely a comparison.
The main exegetical issue revolves around the precise semantic range of the comparative particle ὡσεὶ in Luke 22:44 and its implications for understanding the nature of Christ’s agony. Specifically, the discussion seeks to determine if the text signifies a literal physiological transformation of sweat into blood, or if it functions as a metaphorical comparison to indicate extreme intensity of suffering, where the sweat merely *resembled* large drops of blood. This distinction carries significant weight for theological interpretations of Jesus’s suffering in Gethsemane.
καὶ ἐγένετο ὁ ἱδρὼς αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ θρόμβοι αἵματος
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- The SBLGNT (2010) includes Luke 22:43-44 but encloses them in double square brackets [[…]], indicating significant textual uncertainty and strong doubt regarding their originality. This contrasts with the implied Nestle 1904 text often found in general usage, which typically includes the verses as part of the main text.
Textual Criticism (NA28), Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG)
Textual Criticism (NA28): The passage Luke 22:43-44, which describes an angel strengthening Jesus and his sweat like drops of blood, is one of the most significant textual variants in the New Testament. The NA28 edition includes these verses but places them within double square brackets, indicating a high degree of doubt about their authenticity. Early and highly reliable manuscripts such as P75, א* (Sinaiticus), B (Vaticanus), T (Borgianus), W (Freer Gospels), 1241, fam13, and some Old Latin, Syriac, Coptic (Bo), Georgian, and Armenian versions omit these verses. Conversely, other significant witnesses, including A (Alexandrinus), D (Bezae Cantabrigiensis), L (Regius), R (Nitriensis), Ξ (Zacynthius), Ψ, fam1, 579, 700, and the Byzantine text type, as well as many Latin, Syriac (Cs), Coptic (Sa), and Gothic versions, include them. Scholars generally interpret their absence in key Alexandrian manuscripts as evidence that they are a Western Non-Interpolation, possibly an early scribal addition to emphasize Jesus’s human agony and divine assistance. Despite their likely secondary status, their early appearance in some textual traditions means they have long influenced Christian piety and interpretation. For the purpose of this exegesis, we proceed with an analysis of the Greek as presented, acknowledging the complex textual history.
Lexical Notes:
- ὡσεὶ (hōsei): According to BDAG (Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature), this particle serves two primary functions: (1) *as if, like, as* when introducing a comparison or simile (e.g., Matt 3:16, “the Spirit of God descending ὡσεὶ περιστερὰν [hōsei peristeran, like a dove]”). (2) *about, approximately* when referring to numerical quantities. In Luke 22:44, its usage clearly falls into the first category, introducing a comparison rather than an identity or transformation.
- θρόμβος (thrombos): BDAG defines this as *a clot, curdled mass*. In medical contexts, it specifically refers to *a clot of blood*. KITTEL (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament) notes that θρόμβος can mean “lump, clot, drop (of blood, pus, milk).” The term suggests not merely liquid but something thickened or congealed, implying substantiality or a distinct, visible form.
- αἵματος (haimatos): The genitive of αἷμα (haima), meaning *blood*.
- Combined, θρόμβοι αἵματος refers to “clots of blood” or “large drops of blood,” emphasizing the substantial and alarming nature of the substance being compared to the sweat.
Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis
Grammatically, the particle ὡσεὶ functions as a conjunction or particle of comparison, followed by the nominative plural noun phrase θρόμβοι αἵματος. This construction unequivocally indicates a simile; the sweat is being compared *to* large drops or clots of blood, rather than *transformed into* them. Had the author intended to convey a literal transformation, a different grammatical construction, such as `εἰς` (eis, into) followed by an accusative, would likely have been employed.
Rhetorically, the simile serves to magnify the intensity of Jesus’s agony. The description suggests that his sweat was so profuse, perhaps so viscid or tinged with blood due to extreme physiological and psychological stress (a rare condition known as hematidrosis, though not directly referenced in the text, offers a modern physiological parallel for such an appearance), that it *resembled* large drops or even clots of blood falling to the ground. The passage does not aim for a scientific description but for a powerful literary image. The emphasis is on the visual effect and the extraordinary degree of suffering, conveying the notion of a life-threatening, agonizing struggle. It communicates the *severity* of his internal struggle, leading to a physical manifestation akin to bleeding, underscoring the overwhelming nature of his distress in Gethsemane.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
The exegetical analysis of Luke 22:44 confirms that the particle ὡσεὶ unequivocally signals a comparison, not a literal transformation. The traditional understanding of “bloody sweat,” while deeply ingrained in Christian piety, can be misleading if interpreted as sweat physically turning into blood. Instead, the text vividly portrays the extreme intensity of Jesus’s agony, where his sweat took on the striking appearance and consistency of large drops or clots of blood, powerfully communicating the depth of his suffering.
Based on this analysis, the following translation suggestions are offered:
- “And his sweat became like great drops of blood falling to the ground.”
This translation emphasizes the visual resemblance and the significant size and distinctness of the sweat drops, equating their appearance to large, separate drops of blood, underscoring the intense visual impact of the scene. - “And his sweat was as if it were clots of blood.”
This rendition highlights the perceived consistency or density of the sweat, implying a shocking and alarming resemblance to blood clots. This option foregrounds the substantiality of the sweat, reinforcing the severity of the agony experienced. - “And his sweat became like viscous drops of blood, flowing profusely.”
This version attempts to capture both the comparative nature (`like`) and the implied substantiality and profuseness (`viscous drops`, `flowing profusely`), drawing on the meaning of θρόμβοι to convey the extraordinary nature and impact of Jesus’s profound physical and emotional distress.
I am presuming that EKTENESTERON in Luke 22:44 is a comparative of EKTENHS, but where does the Sigma in the middle before the comparative ending come from? Thanks.
Ken
I am presuming that EKTENESTERON in Luke 22:44 is a comparative of EKTENHS, but where does the Sigma in the middle before the comparative ending come from? Thanks.
Ken
EKTENHS is an s-stem adjective, so the sigma was there all along as part of the stem. In most forms of s-stem adjectives, however, the sigma disappears, but it is still there in the comparative.
Stephen C. Carlson
Graduate Program in Religion
Duke University
EKTENHS is an s-stem adjective, so the sigma was there all along as part of the stem. In most forms of s-stem adjectives, however, the sigma disappears, but it is still there in the comparative.
Stephen C. Carlson
Graduate Program in Religion
Duke University
Stephen wrote:
part of the stem. In most forms of s-stem adjectives, however, the sigma disappears, but it is still there in the comparative.>
Hi, Stephen and Kenneth,
The sigma is still there in the comparative, presumably, because unlike in the other forms, it is not intervocalic. (For those of you in Rio Linda, “intervocalic” is bombast for “between vowels.”)
In fact, as far as I can tell, the sigma in the comparative is the only evidence that the stem is ??????? and not ??????/?, since the sigma in the nominative could just be the ending. (Although maybe the vocative ??????? also points to the sigma as part of the stem. Is the vocative what you meant by “most forms,” or is there another form where the sigma does not disappear?)
Mark L ????????
FWSFOROS MARKOS
Pretty much, yes. I had originally considered “non-oblique forms” but changed it to “most forms” in a bid to safeguard accuracy at the expense of clarity.
Stephen
Stephen wrote:
part of the stem. In most forms of s-stem adjectives, however, the sigma disappears, but it is still there in the comparative.>
Hi, Stephen and Kenneth,
The sigma is still there in the comparative, presumably, because unlike in the other forms, it is not intervocalic. (For those of you in Rio Linda, “intervocalic” is bombast for “between vowels.”)
In fact, as far as I can tell, the sigma in the comparative is the only evidence that the stem is ??????? and not ??????/?, since the sigma in the nominative could just be the ending. (Although maybe the vocative ??????? also points to the sigma as part of the stem. Is the vocative what you meant by “most forms,” or is there another form where the sigma does not disappear?)
Mark L ????????
FWSFOROS MARKOS
Pretty much, yes. I had originally considered “non-oblique forms” but changed it to “most forms” in a bid to safeguard accuracy at the expense of clarity.
Stephen
Alright smarty pants, you’re gonna make me get out my Greek books. (Not my forte). I’m glad YOU can. (Do you pray in koine Greek too? Attic? Then you say it’s tongues…..just kidding).
I would know Link Hudson is never there to interpret 🙂
Thank you for your work. But if you can wrap your mind around this in English you will be closer to the divine son of man than ever. This for me is more evidence of the veracity of scripture. This and the water and the blood from his wounded side which flowed. Both better understood in light of modern medicine.
Well then St. Luke is out of that loop. I mean, if we have to understand it in the light of MODERN medicine…..;-) (heheheh).
He was “put to nought” Luke says.
My understanding is limited. But what a finish for our Lord. Such courage and devotion. Do you want to understand holiness sanctification consecration. His end is our start!
You think YOUR understanding is limited? I can hardly read Greek! Dr. Fancifimus Troyus Dayus up there is going to read the original and then preach a homily in Latin for us! 😉
(Alas, I only have a Bachelor’s in History and a quarter of a Master’s in Education. Poor me. And a crapload of piano-performance experience …and many, many Bible classes and scores of theology books read but….;-)
Brother Walter if you can worship God with clarity and passion you are behind no man! Jesus blood makes us acceptable not Greek. No disrespect. We need scholars. … just saying
Street Preacherz Amen. I agree. I do have some areas of amateur expertise. (Cults and worlds religions for starters, apologetics etc.)
Forget it. Know Him! This is eternal life!!!
Street Preacherz John 17:3. Don’t worry, you’re no stranger to me. I’ve done street preaching too.
Wish you come up here. We need help. From God first. Honest men second.
Of Course I can’t read all the Hebrew you have written. But in English as it is written. Jesus was in the Garden of Gethsemane. And being in agony He prayed more earnestly: and His sweat was as it were great drop of blood falling down to the ground. Portrays a recognized fact that under extreme mental pressure , the pores may become so dilated that blood may issue from them in the form of bloody sweat. I know He had pressure , great pressure on Him. I believe He had souls on His Shoulders that if He didn’t go through with this Cup. All those souls would not have a Heaven to go too. But as I think of all the pours of His Body becoming as great stopes of blood or bloody sweat. I take it that He bless in every portion of His Body to give us Complete Victory, over every cell of our body. I know that will be kinder garden to some people. But I have felt that for a long time. I know He was getting the flesh under subjection. But again He said he kept the Law in all parts yet without sin. My Bible commentary gives great points. But I jus wanted to explain we have Victory over our whole body. His Blood from the the head with the crown of thorns. And his Side and feet and hands was Sufficient. I still feel the burden He felt was total surrender over the flesh to go through this. This was a great Load.
Alright smarty pants, you’re gonna make me get out my Greek books. (Not my forte). I’m glad YOU can. (Do you pray in koine Greek too? Attic? Then you say it’s tongues…..just kidding).
I would know Link Hudson is never there to interpret 🙂
Thank you for your work. But if you can wrap your mind around this in English you will be closer to the divine son of man than ever. This for me is more evidence of the veracity of scripture. This and the water and the blood from his wounded side which flowed. Both better understood in light of modern medicine.
Well then St. Luke is out of that loop. I mean, if we have to understand it in the light of MODERN medicine…..;-) (heheheh).
He was “put to nought” Luke says.
My understanding is limited. But what a finish for our Lord. Such courage and devotion. Do you want to understand holiness sanctification consecration. His end is our start!
You think YOUR understanding is limited? I can hardly read Greek! Dr. Fancifimus Troyus Dayus up there is going to read the original and then preach a homily in Latin for us! 😉
(Alas, I only have a Bachelor’s in History and a quarter of a Master’s in Education. Poor me. And a crapload of piano-performance experience …and many, many Bible classes and scores of theology books read but….;-)
Brother Walter if you can worship God with clarity and passion you are behind no man! Jesus blood makes us acceptable not Greek. No disrespect. We need scholars. … just saying
Street Preacherz Amen. I agree. I do have some areas of amateur expertise. (Cults and worlds religions for starters, apologetics etc.)
Forget it. Know Him! This is eternal life!!!
Street Preacherz John 17:3. Don’t worry, you’re no stranger to me. I’ve done street preaching too.
Wish you come up here. We need help. From God first. Honest men second.
Of Course I can’t read all the Hebrew you have written. But in English as it is written. Jesus was in the Garden of Gethsemane. And being in agony He prayed more earnestly: and His sweat was as it were great drop of blood falling down to the ground. Portrays a recognized fact that under extreme mental pressure , the pores may become so dilated that blood may issue from them in the form of bloody sweat. I know He had pressure , great pressure on Him. I believe He had souls on His Shoulders that if He didn’t go through with this Cup. All those souls would not have a Heaven to go too. But as I think of all the pours of His Body becoming as great stopes of blood or bloody sweat. I take it that He bless in every portion of His Body to give us Complete Victory, over every cell of our body. I know that will be kinder garden to some people. But I have felt that for a long time. I know He was getting the flesh under subjection. But again He said he kept the Law in all parts yet without sin. My Bible commentary gives great points. But I jus wanted to explain we have Victory over our whole body. His Blood from the the head with the crown of thorns. And his Side and feet and hands was Sufficient. I still feel the burden He felt was total surrender over the flesh to go through this. This was a great Load.