The Seed of the Woman: Appendices

I. Tabulation of Supercentarians

II. The Two Values of the Saros

III. Criticisms of the Shorter Values of the Saros

IV. Weld-Blundell Prism

V. Genesis 5: Names Viewed as Dynasties

VI. The Combined Genealogies of Matthew and Luke

VII: Heart Rupture: A Possible Cause of the Lord's Death?

Appendix I

Tabulation Of Supercentenarians

EXPLANATORY NOTES:

(1) The data are not listed alphabetically but serially with increasing age.

(2) The data come from a great number of different sources, many of which are only newspaper reports. Such data are not always reliable and a certain amount of skepticism is proper in assessing them.

(3) The original sources often contained considerable information of general interest and some of this has been included where it seemed of importance.

(4) It will be noted that certain areas of the world appear to favour longevity to an exceptional degree notably Abkhazia (an eastern border of the Black Sea in the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic), Hunza (in the Karakoram Range of Kashmir, Pakistan), and in Vilcabamba (southern Ecuador, South America).

(5) It may seem that most of these supercentenarians are of non-white origin, but this is not the case. The people of Vilcabamba are almost certainly old Spanish stock.

(6) It should be borne in mind that the absence of written records such as birth certificates, marriage certificates, etc., is not necessarily a reason for doubting the general validity of the data. Where a people do not have such records they are apt to be habitually more adept at remembering such things. It is essential for any culture to know the relationships of its members to one another since these relationships determine rights and privileges and responsibilities, and form the basis for many small but highly significant forms of social interaction and courtesies. Patterns of behaviour in all non-literate societies are almost wholly built up on age relationships, in ways that are sometimes exceedingly precise. Australian aborigines recognize 70 to 80 different degrees of relationship and have specific terms for them which are entirely foreign to Indo-Europeans. This network of remembered past fact and acknowledged present relationship serves as an excellent frame of reference in which to check out ages: and where this has been done, considerable confidence in the general correctness of the ages claimed has resulted.

(7) Whatever may be a critical reader's reaction to some of the entries, the data as a whole surely demonstrates that there must have been in the past and still are today many people who attain ages which to the purely skeptical mind are quite beyond reason; yet they cannot all be seriously questioned. We ought not to assume, as we read how easily the scientific community can be misled by forged data from within its own camp (Haeckel's forged diagrams, Dawson's Piltdown Man, Kammerer's frogs, and so forth), that Western man has a monopoly on accurate reporting or recollection of past events.

We need only a few authenticated cases to show that, even today, man can indeed live well past the century mark without becoming a mere vegetable. We really have no hard evidence that men might not formerly have lived far longer. Why should we suppose that the Chinese, whose technology was far advanced above ours in Europe when we in England were dressed in sacking and they were dressing in silk, were more credulous than we are today?

(8) Finally, we have not included "mere" centenarians, for they are even now far too numerous to allow space for them. According to Elinor Langer, there were in the United States alone, in 1963 over 10,000 of them ["Growing Old in America," Science: 140:1963, p. 471] - The tabulation which follows is drawn from many sources of varying value.

In a number of cases documentation is very incomplete. In column five, in the interest of saving space, data derived from books is documented only by author, date, and page. The bibliography below gives the rest of the documentation as far as it has been possible to gather it. The volumes are listed by author, alphabetically.

Acsadi, Gy. and J. Nemeskeri, History of Human Life-Span and Mortality, Budapest, Akadernial Kiado, 1970.

Airola, Paavo, Are You Confused?, Arizona, Health Plus, 1971.

Rejuvenation Secrets Around the World, Arizona, Health Plus, 1974.

Bally, T., Records of Longevity, London, 1857.

Dublin L. I., Length of Life: A Study of the Life Table, rev. ed., N.Y., Ronald Press, 1949.

Gould, George M. and Walter L. Pyle, Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine, N.Y., Julian Press, 6th printing, 1966.

Gris, Henry and Milton Merlin, "May You Live to be 200," A Study of the Centenarians of Russian Georgia, London, Barnes & Co., 1978.

Halsell, Grace, Las Viejos, Emmaus, Pa., Rodale Press, 1976.

Hufeland, C. W., The Art of Prolonging Life, ed. E. Wilson, Phila., 1870.

Humboldt, Baron von F. H. A., Political Essay on New Spain, 1807, Vol. 1.

Masston, Sir Charles, The Bible Comes Alive, London, Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1937.

Prichard, James C., Researches into the Physical History of Mankind, London, Houlston and Stoneman, 1836, 5 vols.

The Tabulation proper has been omited from this online version since it will not likely be of interest to most readers.

Appendix II

The Two Values Of The Saros

The Babylonian system of counting involved a process of multiplying by an alternate number instead of multiplying by the same number. We use the number ten. We start with one and multiply it by 10 to give us TEN, then again by 10 to give us a HUNDRED, and again by 10 to give us a THOUSAND, and so on. In the Babylonian system, they began with one and multiplied by 10 as we do. But then they multiplied this by 6. The next step they multiplied by 10 again, and then once more by 6. They did not, of course, use the word TEN or HUNDRED or THOUSAND which are English words... they used the words SOSSOS, NAROS and SAROS. Thus:

A SOSSOS was 10 x 6, or 60.
A NAROS was 60 x 10, or 600, i.e., 10 SOSSI.
A SAROS was 600 x 6, or 3600, i.e., 6 NARI.

They had a further term which signified a SAROS multiplied by 10, i.e., 36,000: and the next number in the series was 36,000 multiplied by 6, or 216,000. This was referred to as Shar-ges.

Now according to the above system, the usual value of a Saros for ordinary purposes of mathematical calculation was 3600 and this is the value which has been given to it by scholars in interpreting the Table of Berossus in which the reigns of the Kings were listed as so many Sari. This Table was set forth as follows:

But, as we have noted, there was the alternative value to the Saros. This shorter value was first reported by Suidas, a Greek lexicographer of whom little or nothing is known except that he must have lived before Eustathius (12th - 13th century A.D.) who frequently quoted him. Under the heading ADAM, Suidas in his lexicon gives a brief chronology of the world ending with the death of the Emperor John Zimisces (975 A.D.). This would indicate that Suidas lived in the latter part of the tenth century. His lexicon is in the nature of a dictionary and encyclopedia combined, and it includes numerous quotations from ancient writers such as Aristophanes, Homer, Sophocles, and Thucydides. A prefatory note gives a list of earlier dictionaries, and although the work is somewhat uncritical it contains much information on ancient history and life. It also gives the length of reigns of the antediluvian Kings in Sari. But at this point Suidas informs us that this unit of measurement had a double value among the Babylonians. His words are: (251)

Sari are, with the Chaldeans, both a measure and a number...According to the calculations of the Chaldeans, the saros contains 222 lunar months which is equivalent to 18 years and 6 months.

The mathematics of Suidas can be bothersome unless one realizes that he is using a year of 360 days and a month of 30 days. With these equivalents his figures of 222 months does work out at 18 years and 6 months. But the modern Saros which is given the value of 18 years, 11 days, and 8 hours does not satisfy his calculation. The point is not important unless one is a mathematical purist. From the point of view of Suidas, we simply have an alternative value of the Saros attributed to the Babylonians which makes an enormous difference to the figures in the tabulation of Berossus as will be seen from the following:

It should be borne in mind that the figures given by Berossus are not life spans as in Genesis but lengths of reigns. The average length of reign from the above Table will be seen to be 222 years, which is far more reasonable than the figure of 4320 years which is the average length of reign according to Berossus' list when calculated on the basis of the higher value of the Saros. If we assume that each King ascended to the "throne" upon the death of his predecessor, we can add together the ten successive reigns and take this to be the total period from Adam to the Flood.

Appendix III

Criticisms Of The Shorter Value Of The Saros

The Greeks adopted the Babylonian asterisms and appropriated their knowledge of the planets and their courses, and they learned to predict eclipses by means of the Saros. This cycle of 18.03 years is the time in which the moon returns very nearly to her original position with respect to both the sun and to her nodes and perigee. A. M. Clerke notes that there is no getting back to the actual beginnings of such knowledge of the heavens, but records dating from the reign of Sargon of Akkad (2350 B.C.) imply that the varying aspects of the sky had even then been long under expert observation. (252) There is reason to suppose that the star groupings with which we are now familiar had even then begun to be formulated. (253) Clerke observes that clay tablets preserved in the British Museum have supplied detailed knowledge of the methods practiced in Mesopotamia in the second century B.C. and that these show no trace of Greek influence. The Babylonian observers were not only aware that Venus returns in almost exactly eight years to a given starting point in the sky, but they had established similar periodic relations of 46, 59, 79, and 83 years for Mercury, Saturn, Mars, and Jupiter.

They were accordingly able to fix in advance the approximate positions of these objects with reference to eclipitical stars which served as fiducial points for their determination. The dates and circumstances of solar and lunar eclipses were predicted. Clerke notes that F. X. Kugler made the discovery that the various periods underlying their lunar predictions were identical with those hitherto believed to have been reached independently by Hipparchus, who accordingly must be held to have borrowed from Chaldea the lengths of the synodic, sidereal, anomalistic and draconitic months. Evidently a steady flow of knowledge began from East to West in the seventh century B.C. A Babylonian sage founded a school about 640 B.C. in the Isle of Cos, and possibly may have counted Thales of Myletus (c. 639-548 B.C.) among his pupils. Clerke believes that the famous "eclipse of Thales" in 585 B.C. has not yet been authenticated by research, yet the story as told by Herodotus appears to intimate that a knowledge of the Saros, such as would have allowed such a prediction to be made, was indeed possessed by Thales. The question is, Where did he get it from? If Thales obtained it from the Babylonians either by studying their records or by having been taught it at school, then obviously the shorter value of the Saros, upon which such knowledge depends, must have long antedated the Greeks and there would be no fundamental reason why the antediluvian patriarchal ages might not actually have been recorded by the early Babylonians in Sari having this shorter value.

This is a point at issue in Sarton's view. He argues that the Babylonians could not have been acute enough to extract this eighteen year cyclical period from their observations of the heavens, and he supports this conclusion from a work by a Dr. Antone Pannekoek, a Dutch astronomer, who wrote a paper entitled, "The Origin of the Saros" which appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Academy of Amsterdam in 1918. (254) According to Sarton, "neither the Babylonians nor the Greeks had any idea before the fifth or fourth century B.C." of the shorter value of the Saros. (255) He argues that such a period would have been exceedingly difficult to discover if for no other reason than that it does not embrace a whole number of days. It involves a certain number of days, plus eight hours. In his view the discovery of the Saros was therefore "not simply difficult but impossible." (256)

Any writer who holds categorically that something is impossible is asking for trouble. There are impossible things, of course. But in a case like this, the word impossible means that no document can ever be allowed to be discovered which contradicts it. And this, of course, is an impossible prohibition!

Now Pannekoek, in his original paper, makes the following observation: (257)

The forecast of eclipses, which to the uneducated is such a convincing proof of the power and accuracy of astronomical science, is not the fruit of highly developed modern theory, but belongs to the oldest products of human science. Greek writers tell us that the Babylonians were already able to predict the eclipses by means of a period of eighteen years, which they called a saros, and which rested on the fact that 223 synodic lunar periods and 242 draconic revolutions are practically equal (both 6585.3 days), that after the period therefore, full and new moon return to the same position relative to the nodes.

According to the theory of Hugo Winckler's school, Babylonian astronomy had reached its highest perfection as early as 2000 to 3000 B.C., and therefore the origin of the saros lay in such a far off time that there is no possibility of following the road to its discovery.

Pannekoek proceeds to show that the Babylonians could not possibly have had the insight to observe this astronomical measure on the grounds that it would require someone to make a continuous compilation of events and then to notice from his own compilation the almost exact recurrence of events over a cycle of eighteen years. The argument, in effect, is that their minds were not keen enough to observe the recurrence of events over a comparatively short period, although as we now know they did observe cycles of considerably longer lengths, which would require even greater powers of observation! As a matter of fact, Pannekoek himself refers to a list of lunar eclipses arranged according to Saros periods which is now in the British Museum (Sp.ll.71) of which Strassmaeir had given a transcription in 1894. Pannekoek stresses that it could only be after such lists of eclipses had accumulated "in the course of centuries" that their periodical recurrences could be noted. He did not have a very high opinion, obviously, of the competence of these people whose mathematics is now known to have been highly advanced, as Professor T. J. Meek has shown. (258)

So he concludes, "This shows that the familiar story according to which the Greek philosopher Thales predicted a total eclipse in 585 B.C. by means of a knowledge of the saros borrowed from the Babylonians can only be regarded as a fiction. At that time the saros was still unknown..." But then, of course, Pannekoek (and Sarton) may be quite mistaken!

Appendix IV

Weld-Blundell Prism

The Weld-Blundell Prism is believed to have been written by a certain NURNINSUBUR and has been dated about 2170 B.C. This Sumerian King List is known in several variant forms, the variance being chiefly in slight differences in the spelling of the names and in the appearance of only eight names rather than ten in some editions. In Table XI we give the ten-name variant after Halley but corrected to more exact figures. (259) Halley seems to have rounded his figures to the nearest thousand years.

Average reign = 180 yrs.

In Table XII we give two eight-name variants, of which the first column of names is the form in which they are presented in Barton's translation based on Professor Stephen Langdon's text, (260) and the second column of names is the form in which Pritchard presents them on the basis of Thorkild Jacobsen's Sumerian King List. (261) Jacobs then attempted to reconcile all the available variant readings and to produce a kind of textus receptus or "standard version." He believed that all currently known texts went back to a single original written at the time of UTU-HEGAL, King of Uruk, around 2100 B.C. I have shown two numbers, (4) and (10), as blanks in the list merely to preserve the pattern of ten names which more or less correspond with the lists in Tables X and Xl.

Average length of reign:
Long reckoning 30,150 years
Short reckoning 155 years

* The two final figures appear to be somehow in error (presumably in the original) if whole Sari are the units, since 21,000 would be 5.83 Sari and 18,600 would be 5.16 Sari. Probably these figures should be 21,600 (i.e.,6 whole Sari) and 18,000 (i.e. 5 whole Sari). The 600 has somehow been transposed from the 21,000 entry to the 18,000 entry.

In order to reconcile Berossus' version with Jacobsen's (i.e., Table X with Table XII), we have to deal with three points of disagreement: the first is in the number of names (10 as opposed to 8), the second is in the spelling of the names, and the third is in the lengths of the reigns. The common factor which is assumed to equate these lists in point of fact, is the concluding comment by the originator in each case to the effect that what followed next was the Deluge. In the Berossus version after number 10 we are told, "in the time of Xisuthros the great deluge occurred." In the standard version of Jacobsen, following his entry of UBARTUTU are the words, "then the flood swept over the earth." These all, therefore, refer to pre- Flood times.

With respect to the divergence in numbers, nothing can be said at the present time. With respect to the difference in names, it could be argued that Berossus' List gives the names in a form which had become familiar to the Greeks. Although none of the proposed reconciliations in this respect are very satisfactory, there are some rationalizations. For example, in view of the fact that L and R are commonly interchanged, ALOR- (in Table X) could conceivably be a corruption of ALUL- (in Table XII) for entry No.1. In No.2 ALAPAR- (in Table X) could be ALAMAR- (in Table XII), in view of the fact that P and M are interchangeable. In this case, a hypothetical ALAMAR- would be a broken down form of the ALALMAR- (Table XII). S. R. Driver suggested that OTIARTES (Table X) is a corruption for a hypothetical OPARTES, which in turn might be a broken down form of UBAR-TUTU (Table XII), which means "father of UT-NAPISHTIM" who was the "Noah" of one of the Cuneiform Flood stories. OPARTES would then be equated with No.9 of Table XII.

However, it is very generally agreed that this kind of bridge building has a somewhat doubtful value, and at the present moment we have to accept the fact that Berossus' King List does not match very well in this respect with the Weld-Blundell Prism which it is nevertheless probably "descended from."

The question of the difference in the number of entries possibly finds its explanation in a more exciting way. First of all, it is necessary to bear in mind that these Cuneiform Lists provide us with lengths of reigns only. They are strictly "King Lists." It might be supposed, therefore, that individuals who did not become kings in the line would be omitted. By contrast, the biblical list is a straightforward genealogical table, giving us merely the names and ages of the firstborn sons from Adam to Noah. The wonderful thing about the latter list is that it also informs us, indirectly, that two of the ten died before their fathers, namely, Enoch and Lamech. Assuming that the head of the house of the leading family was "king" until his decease, then there could only have been eight such kings: though there were actually ten generations. Enoch was removed by translation 435 years before his father Jared died; and Lamech, being a man of violence, seems to have come to an end earlier than expected at the age of 777 years, just five years before his father Methuselah died. He must have been a very frustrated prince!

Thus the figures in the Bible are sufficient to provide us with a possible key to the difference between the Weld-Blundell Prism of 2100 B.C. or thereabouts which was a list of "chiefs," while the Berossus account perhaps is a list of the names (as then remembered) of the full ten generations. If they are in the correct order, Enoch would be represented by EDORANCHOS in Berossus' List, a name which might be composed of two elements: EDOR and ANCHOS. Conceivably ANCHOS is a corruption of Enoch. Lamech would be represented by the name OTIARTES, which is not easy to account for.

Although I do not think much weight can be attached to the argument, it is just possible that in 2 Peter 2:5 where Noah is spoken of as "the eighth," and not "the tenth" as might have been expected, the reference could be to his position as eighth chief or "king" from Adam. (262) In Jude 14 where Enoch is spoken of as the seventh from Adam, the reference would presumably be to his position merely in the line of descent. At any rate, it is an intriguing thought that we may have in the Genesis account an explanation for the apparent divergence between Berossus and his original source.

Perhaps even these pagan accounts from the Cuneiform and elsewhere, in spite of their gross exaggeration of the figures (due possibly to a misreading of the units of measurement somewhere along the line) are genuine reflections of an actual phenomenon in the early history of the human race. Such a tradition, as we have seen, is remarkably widespread among the nations of antiquity, and virtually all such traditions agree among themselves at two important points: man lived for centuries before the Flood, and there were ten generations only from the creation of the first man to that event. It is true that the number ten might conceivably be artificial, chosen as a mnemonic aid on the basis of the number of fingers on both hands. By the same token, it would surely not be reasonable to account for the eight names of what is believed to be the Sumerian King List on the ground that we only have eight fingers - the two thumbs being excluded!

Appendix V

Genesis 5: Names Viewed As Dynasties

The family of Seth originated when Adam was 130 years old (v.3) [130 years]

Adam and his direct line were at the head of affairs for 930 years (v.5) when they were superceded by [930 years] the family of Seth.

In Seth, 105 years after it attained leadership, the family of Enosh took its rise (v.6).

After being at the head of affairs for 912 years (v.8) Seth was succeeded by [1842 years] the family of Enosh. Ninety years after Enosh attained to the headship, there sprang from it the family of Kenan (v.9). [1932 years]

After Enosh had held the leadership for another 815 years (v.10), Enosh gave place to -The family of Kenan. [2747 years]

Seventy years after Kenan had founded his dynasty, the family of Mahalaleel began its rise to power. [2817 years]

Meanwhile Kenan's dynasty survived another 840 years and was then replaced by the family of Mahalaleel. [3657 years.]

Sixty-five years after the rise of the dynasty of Mahahaleel, the family of Jared began to be prominent. [3722 years]

The dynasty of Mahalaleel meanwhile continued for another 830 years, but was then overthrown by the dynasty of Jared. [4552 years]

One hundred and sixty-two years after the rise of Jared's family, the family of Enoch began to become powerful. [4714 years]

But Jared's family retained power for another 800 years and then died out, to be succeeded by the dynasty established by Enoch. [5514 years]

Sixty-five years after the rise of the family of Enoch, however, the family of Methuselah began to be prominent. [5579 years]

The dynasty of Enoch survived for 300 years to be replaced by Methuselah's dynasty. [5879 years]

One hundred and eighty-seven years after the rise of the family of Methuselah, Lamech's family became prominent. [6066 years]

However, the supremacy of Methuselah's dynasty continued for another 782 years, to be replaced by the family of Lamech. [6848 years]

One hundred and eighty-two years after Lamech's family had begun its rise to power, the family of Noah came into existence. [7030 years]

And six hundred years later, the Flood came and brought to an end all these dynasties. This makes a grand total, from Adam to the Flood, of [7630 years].

Appendix VI

The Combined Genealogies Of Matthew And Luke

The study of an ancient genealogy can be quite fascinating but it takes a little getting into and demands more than ordinary dedication.

The two genealogies of our Lord which together establish his absolute right to the throne of David, both by blood relationship through Mary and by title through Mary's husband, bear close examination. For they show how the two lines were preserved at one particularly critical period when almost all family relationships in Israel were being disrupted. This was at the time of the Captivity in Babylon. It is shown in a standard genealogy chart as a kind of "wasp-waist" joining the head and the body of the genealogy above and below Zerubbabel.

The details of this gate are the subject of this Appendix. It seemed important to say something about the circumstances here because it is at this point in the line that the blood relationship between the Lord and David comes nearest to being destroyed.

• Chart: The Family Tree from Adam to Jesus

The numbers which appear against the names in the Tabulation represent the two different systems of accounting adopted by Matthew, on the left side, and Luke, on the right. In Matthew, David appears as the 14th name from Abraham: in Luke David is the 34th name from Adam. The red line represents the blood line connection: the yellow line represents the carrying of title to the throne of David.

David had two sons who figure as heads of the two branches of the family as indicated in Matthew and Luke, namely, Solomon and Nathan. In Matthew's genealogy Solomon becomes No. 1 in the second group of 14 names: and in Luke's genealogy Nathan becomes No. 35 on the other branch line.

From Solomon we move down to Joram, No. 6. Joram married Athaliah, the wicked daughter of a wicked father and mother (Ahab and Jezebel). As a consequence of this evil man and his wife, his seed was cursed for four generations in accordance with the reference made in Exodus 20:5. Thus Matthew, who probably follows the Temple records faithfully in his list, omits the next three names (Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah) from his genealogy. There is little doubt that these Temple records had, by divine providence, removed these three generations from the register, so that Ozias (No. 7) appears as though he were the son of Joram, No. 6, in the accounting of Matthew 1:8. We know from 1 Chronicles 3:11 and 12 that in the original court records, these three missing names were written down. In this court record, Ozias (No. 7) is given an alternative name Azariah (1 Chron. 3:12), and elsewhere he is also called Uzziah (Isa. 6:1). These are merely variants of the same name.

We pass on to No. 14, Jehoiakim. It is important to note that his name ends with an M, not an N, and he is not to be confused with his son whose name was Jehoiakin (or alternatively Jeconiah, Jechonias, Coniah, and Conias). This multivariant form of a name applied to a single individual is common in many of the older cultures. It seems to be particularly prevalent in Russia, even today.

Now, with Jehoiakim (No. 14) we begin to see the hand of God at work in a very special way separating the thread of continuity of blood relationship and titular right to the throne in David's family. Jehoiakim was the last king of Israel to come to the throne as a free man. Unfortunately he was both an evil man and a foolish one. He began his reign just when the Fertile Crescent was in a state of political turmoil, Nebuchadnezzar in particular having very ambitious designs for empire building which were challenged by Egypt. In this see-saw contest for power that habitually characterized the relationship between Egypt and Babylon, Palestine stood at the pivot point. But Jerusalem itself need not really have become involved, for the city actually stood off the main route between the two warring parties. Any king of Judah who kept out of the fray and conciliated the antagonists as they marched their armies back and forth to attack each other, could expect to be left more or less alone except for paying token tribute.

Jehoiakim was not humble enough or wise enough to realize this, and provoked Nebuchadnezzar to attack Jerusalem. This was the Lord's way of punishing a wicked man who had unwisely aligned himself with the king of Egypt. His immediate punishment was to have his city besieged and overrun, and to be carried captive to Babylon (2 Chron. 36:5,6). But for some reason Nebuchadnezzar decided to return him to Jerusalem as a puppet king while he completed his unfinished business in Egypt. His long range punishment was foretold by Jeremiah (36:30) that none of his seed should ever sit upon the throne of David. This was a severe blow to him because he was in the direct line, as Matthew's genealogy shows, and probably had every expectation of seeing this greatest of all honors accorded to his seed in due time.

Meanwhile Nebuchadnezzar, having completed his Egyptian campaign, soon discovered that Jehoiakim was a treacherous man who could not be trusted by friend or foe. Indeed, so treacherous was he that even the people of his own city, Jerusalem, turned against him, murdered him, threw his body over the walls and left him unburied outside the city - exactly as predicted by Jeremiah (22:18,19). Nebuchadnezzar must surely have known what had happened, but he did not interfere when Jehoiakin (i.e., Jechonias, No. 55) succeeded his father.

But this young prince who was only eighteen years old when thus honoured (2 Kings 24:8) proved to have no more good sense than his evil father. He provoked Nebuchadnezzar (after only three months and ten days on the throne) to invest the city once more and depose him (2 Chron. 36:9). Jechonias and all his court were taken captive to Babylon while his uncle, Zedekiah, was left as regent. Unfortunately, Zedekiah behaved as the rest of his family had done and eleven years later, Nebuchadnezzar seized Zedekiah, put all his sons to death before his eyes, and then deliberately blinded him. Zedekiah was taken to Babylon and died there. Jerusalem meanwhile was utterly destroyed (2 Kings 24:17-25:16).

Now Jechonias, after being taken to Babylon, was put in prison where he remained for some thirty-seven years. It appears that either before he was taken captive or possibly during his captivity he was married to a woman of appropriate status who appears to have been a daughter of Neri (No. 54 in Nathan's branch of the family) and therefore of David's line. In order to account for the subsequent relationships shown in the two converging genealogies, we have to assume that this woman was a widow whose husband had probably been killed in one of the many sieges which Jerusalem had suffered. It seems as though the prophet Zechariah had this circumstance in mind (12:12). This widow already had a son by her deceased husband when Jechonias took her as a wife. This son's name was Pedaiah. His name is not numbered in the genealogy shown in the chart. It appears only in 1 Chronicles 3:18 where he is shown as a son of Jehoiakin (i.e., Jechonias). If his widowed mother was married to Jechonias, he would by Jewish custom become the son of Jechonias automatically.

But Jechonias appears to have had a son of his own by this widow of the royal line. This son's name was Salathiel (No. 2 and No. 56 in the two pedigree lines). By this marriage of a widow to Jechonias, these two boys - sons of the same mother - would become brothers by Jewish custom.

However, Salathiel appears to have died childless, though not until he had reached manhood and married a wife. Jehoiakim's blood line thus came to an end in his grandson Salathiel - indicated by termination of the red line. But as it happens the actual title to the throne remained active. The curse of Jeremiah 36:30 was to be fulfilled not by the removal of the title itself from Jehoiakim's line but by the denial of that title to anyone who happened to be a blood relative in the line. With the death of Salathiel this blood line terminated.

But now, according to Jewish custom as set forth in the principle of the Levirate (Deut. 25:5,6), it became incumbent upon Pedaiah, the deceased Salathiel's (step) brother, to take his widow and raise up seed through her who would not therefore be of Salathiel's blood line but would be constituted legally as Salathiel's son through whom the title would pass to his descendants. The son of this Levirate union was Zerubbabel. In Matthew 1:12 and Luke 3:27 Zerubbabel is listed legally as Salathiel's son: but in 1 Chronicles 3:19 he is listed as the son of Pedaiah by actual blood relationship.

In the terms of biblical reckoning these two statements are in no sense contradictory. We might wish to be more precise by substituting such extended terms of relationship as son-in-law, stepson, and so forth. But Scripture is not required to adopt our particular terminology. It is required only to be consistent with itself, and the facts of the case as recorded of those who were the actors in the drama are precisely as stated.

We thus have a remarkable chain of events. Jehoiakim has a son, Jechonias, who has a son, Salathiel, who by Levirate custom has a son named Zerubbabel. This son, Zerubbabel, has no blood line connection whatever with Jechonias, for he has no blood relationship with Salathiel. The blood relationship of Zerubbabel is with Pedaiah, and through Pedaiah with Pedaiah's mother, and through this mother with Neri. Thus Neri begat a grandson, Salathiel, through his daughter; and Salathiel "begets" a son, Zerubbabel, through Pedaiah.

The blood line thus passes through Zerubbabel: but so does the title also. The former passes via Pedaiah's mother, the latter passes through Salathiel's father. And though this mother and this father were also man and wife, the blood line stopped with Salathiel who literally died childless. It is necessary to emphasize this word literally, for it appears that it was literally true. Jeremiah 22:30 had predicted that Jechonias would also die "childless"-but we are reasonably sure that this was not literally the case, for he had a son Salathiel whom we cannot otherwise account for. But Jechonias' subsequent history tells us the sense in which childlessness was to be applied to him.

Jechonias seems to have matured and softened during his thirty-seven years of imprisonment in Babylon, and Nebuchadnezzar's son, Evil-Merodach, evidently took a liking to him and set him free, giving him a pension for the rest of his life (2 Kings 25:27-30: Jer. 52:31-34). He would by now be nearing sixty and probably be counted a harmless old man.

Reading these two records of Scripture concerning this surprising act of clemency accorded to the last genuine king of Israel (until Messiah shall be crowned), one has a strange sense of the mercy of God and the potential for gracious action that even pagan kings could display in those days. It is a touching swan-song to the old kingdom of David's line which will yet be renewed in glory. At any rate, when Jechonias died, he seems to have died alone without male descendants, "childless" in his old age, as Jeremiah had predicted he would.

As to Zerubbabel, he became a very prominent and worthy man in the rebuilding of Israel's fortunes after the Captivity, under the benevolent authority of Cyrus. He stands as No. 3 and No. 57 in the dual pedigree. He appears to have had several sons and one daughter (1 Chron. 3:19). We do not know why his sons were disqualified: we only know that their sister, Shelomith, inherited the title and carried the blood line. Both of these she passed on to her eldest son, Abiud, and so to Joseph. But with Joseph, as with Salathiel, the blood line terminated once again in so far as the Lord Jesus received nothing from him by natural procreation. However, Mary drew her line, the blood line, through Heli from Joanna (No. 59), the second son of Shelomith.

And thus the Lord Jesus received the two guarantees of right to the throne of David: the blood line through his mother directly, and the title through his adopting father, Joseph. With his death and resurrection these two rights became locked for ever in his Person and cannot be passed on to, or henceforth claimed by, any other man.

Appendix VII

Heart Rupture: A Possible Cause Of The Lord's Death?

Did the Lord Jesus die from a broken heart?

Not a few commentators of recent years have suggested that He did, and the evidence adduced in such a work as that by Dr. William Stroud carries considerable weight. (263) Yet I believe it is important to distinguish between dying with a broken heart and dying from, or as a result of, a broken heart. In the Lord's case the former, I am persuaded, may be a sad truth but the latter is a profound error. I believe that the circumstantial evidence from the Gospels lends some support to the view that the Lord's heart was broken, ruptured in the most literal sense, when He died. But I am also persuaded that this was not the cause of his dying, nor even a contributing factor in it. But this, in turn, means it must be possible for a man with a ruptured heart to continue an active life. It means that heart rupture is not necessarily immediately fatal. Is this the case? Can a man survive for any length of time after the heart has ruptured, and what would be the symptoms during that survival time? And what are the known causes of heart rupture in the first place?

Poets speak of a broken heart without meaning that the organ itself is physiologically ruptured: and we commonly speak of men and women (and upon occasion of pets, too) as having died of a broken heart in consequence of bereavement or very great disappointment. History also shows that great and unexpected joy can be fatal in a strikingly similar manner. Commonly, we suppose that such an experience is so emotionally overwhelming that the rhythm of the pulse is severely disturbed causing a fatal malfunction of the vagus nerve which regulates the beat. We do not necessarily mean the actual rupture of the walls of the heart's chambers. It is as though the engine were "stalled," rather as a car engine may be stalled by feeding it too strong a mixture of fuel.

But actual heart rupture is well known in medical histories and if autopsies were performed as frequently and as routinely today as they were during the last century, we might well find as frequent reference in current medical literature to it as there was a century ago, especially in Europe. However, there are still many accounts of death by heart rupture, verified by post mortem examination. And in a surprising number of instances rupture was not immediately fatal. From some quite extensive accounts it is clear that a man may live for some hours and, though in great discomfort, may continue the daily round of activities until, suddenly, there comes a dramatic end - sometimes in great pain, but sometimes quietly during sleep.

Is this, then, the cause of the death of the Lord Jesus? Personally, I do not think so: but let us look at some of the evidence which has led not a few commentators to assume that heart rupture was indeed the immediate cause of the Lord's death. It is a view which has a certain sentimental appeal and should therefore be examined all the more carefully.

Before embarking on a brief historical summary of the evidence regarding heart rupture, it will be proper to note a fact which helps to account for the comparative paucity of medical reports on the subject in the enormous literature of the present day. One is hard put, in fact, to find many references in current medical literature guides such as Index Medicus, and one may note also that the world famous authority on human stress, Dr. Hans Selyc of Montreal, scarcely even mentions the subject in his very extended bibliographies. Is this because heart rupture is now so rare and therefore seldom considered a likely cause of premature death, and is therefore unrecognized because not expected? One contributing factor may be that post mortems, so common formerly at least in Europe, are now somewhat rarer because it is necessary today to obtain permission either beforehand from the patient or afterwards from the nearest of kin, whereas previously this was not a requirement. As a consequence such post mortems are less often carried out, especially since the rather general term 'heart failure' seems to be accepted as a sufficient description of the cause of death.

The literature of antiquity and the medical literature of the last century or two abounds in detailed accounts which we have no reason to suppose are not authentic and quite correctly diagnosed.

In a recent study of this aspect of medical diagnosis, Dr. George L. Engel of Strong Memorial Hospital, New York, published the results of a survey of 275 newspaper reports of sudden death attributed to heart failure due to traumatic shock. (264) He commences by saying, "Few folklore notions have enjoyed as widespread and persistent popularity as those that ascribe sudden death to emotional shock. As far back as written records exist, people are described as dying suddenly while in the throes of fear, rage, grief, humiliation, or joy." He notes that physicians writing before 1900 often ascribe sudden deaths to intense emotion, but with the coming of the germ theory of disease in the late nineteenth century which cast doubts on much folklore about medical matters, such notions fell into disfavor. "In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries medical writings abounded in such accounts...Since then consideration of the relationship between emotion and sudden death has virtually disappeared from the medical literature." Yet he adds: "Many physicians in private conversations are quite ready to recount from their own practices examples of patients who apparently died suddenly under precisely such circumstances."

Engel gives a breakdown of his findings, stating that of the 275 reports studied, clearly the most common (135 deaths) cause was an exceptional traumatic disruption of a close human relationship, whether actual or anticipated, or confrontation with events of great emotional consequence impossible to escape. He observes that in experiments with animals this was most likely to occur with already damaged hearts, but it was not a hard and fast rule. Animals with undamaged hearts also suffered heart rupture under certain conditions of stress. And as to humans, an 88 year old man without known heart disease was reported to have developed acute pulmonary edema after receiving tragic news, dying just as the doctor reached the house. A similar report of an otherwise healthy 27 year old captain is also noted.

As to the cause: it frequently appears to be the result of severe derangement of the cardiac rhythm - particularly in the case of humans. Certain hormonal substances are secreted in excess during stress which predispose the heart to lethal arrhythmias.

Engel comments: "We can only speculate about the mechanism of death in such cases. Most would agree that effective cardiac arrest, whether caused by ventricular asystole or by ventricular tachyarrhythmias, is probably responsible for the death of those who die within a few minutes...But such are not present in all cases...Some of the lethal influences may involve rapid shifts between sympathetic and parasympathetic cardiovascular effects."

Such shifts back and forth can be invoked experimentally in animals and the usual consequence is sudden death for no other accountable reason. This has been demonstrated in squirrel monkeys. Engel therefore concludes: "Certainly, the use of 'folklore' or 'old wives' tales' as pejorative labels, as some skeptics are wont to do, is hardly compatible with the scientific attitude requisite for the study of natural phenomena involving life and death."

It is curious that there seem to be as many reports from antiquity of death from heart rupture caused by sudden joy as there are by sudden grief! Later reports tend in the opposite direction.

Valerius Maximus (c. 30 A.D.) tells us that Sophocles, the writer of Greek tragedies, had died in 405 B.C. in consequence of a decision being pronounced in his favour in a contest concerning his honour. (265) The Roman historian Livy, writing about the same time, mentions the case of an aged mother, who while she was in the depths of distress due to tidings of her son having been slain in battle, died in his arms from excess of joy on his safe return. (266) Pliny, writing somewhere around 100 A.D., informs us that the Lacedemonian, Chilo, died upon hearing that his son had won a prize in the Olympic Games. (267) The Greek physician, Galen (about 175 A.D.), mentions death from joy, commenting that the emotion of joy is more dangerous to the heart than anger. (268) Aulus Gellius (second century A.D.) mentions the remarkable example of such in the case of the Greek poet Diagoras of Melos whose three sons were crowned the same day as victors in the Olympic Games, one as a pugilist, the second as a wrestler, and the third in both roles. (269)

Among the fragmentary remains of a kind of official Journal of contemporary events authorized by the Roman Emperors and known under the title Ephemerides, there are instances of death from sudden joy. Similar reports are also known from Marcellus Donatus (1586) and other writers. (270) In recent times Gould and Pyle, speaking of this fact, observed that heart rupture is known to have occurred from sudden joy by post mortem examination; in one particular case the pericardium (the sac around the heart) being filled with blood as a consequence. (271) The general assumption made by these writers is that rupture resulted from the sudden and excessive increase in cardiac output. (272) Such medical histories seem to bear out not only that excessive joy is as damaging to the heart as excessive grief but that the damage is likely to be more immediately fatal. Perhaps this is a reflection of the fact that we are less accustomed to joy than to grief and therefore build up a greater capacity to sustain the shocks of the latter. At any rate, it seems as though the individual may survive heart rupture caused by an excessive disappointment for several hours, or even for days. Nor is heart rupture from external injury always immediately fatal either.

If not all, at least the great majority, of instances of heart rupture are probably because the heart tissue has already been weakened by fatty degeneration or some other damage such as infarct, for example, due to strain, although a surprising number of post mortems of the last century were unable to demonstrate any such predisposing condition, the walls of the organ being firm and healthy at the time of actual rupture.

As we have already noted, one of the most complete studies vis-a-vis the death of the Lord Jesus is that undertaken by William Stroud. Stroud quotes from many sources, especially during the nineteenth century when such interest in the subject of heart rupture was evidenced by the numerous reports in the medical literature. Thereafter, interest seems to have declined, partly as a result of the greater restrictions imposed upon post mortem examination. Today, however, there is renewed concern. MD of Canada recently had the following note under the title, "Subacute Heart Rupture": (273)

Rupture of the heart has now become the second major cause of death in the coronary care unit, second only to myocardial failure. Investigation by Dr. Michael O'Rourke of Sydney, Australia, (274) shows that in some instances heart rupture is not sudden and dramatic but subacute. If recognized early, this rupture can be repaired surgically.

Perhaps two factors have contributed to this resurgence of interest: life is more hectic and heart failure of one kind or another has become more common. At the same time, the tremendous advances in heart surgery technique, and perhaps the temptation of surgeons to prove their own skills, has improved chances of survival by corrective measures.

In the meantime, it is now rather well established that rupture can be sustained for a remarkable length of time without fatal consequences though not without severe pain. It is not at all impossible, therefore, that Jesus may have indeed suffered some form of subacute heart rupture in Gethsemane and yet have sustained the subsequent abuse at the hands of the soldiers and the final torture of crucifixion some hours later, without succumbing to the effects of the rupture itself. We have some well authenticated instances of survival for several days after severe heart rupture which were later fully confirmed by a post mortem examination. But it must still be borne in mind that such examination generally suggested previous tissue degeneration, a circumstance which it is difficult to admit in Jesus' case.

A German physician, Dr. Daniel Fischer, whose chief interest was heart pathology, in the December, 1817, issue of the Journal der Prachschen Heilkunde, reported such a case in some detail. (275) A summary statement of the case is given herewith.

A gentleman, aged 68 (his initials only are given as V.K.), in apparently robust health, was forced by an unfortunate circumstance to retire from a prominent position in the German court. The experience proved excessively burdensome to his sensitive nature. On the 16th of October, 1817, he was suddenly seized with a violent pain while walking, which he supposed to be a stomach cramp. He reached home half a mile distant only with great difficulty, but after some medication (Hoffman's Anodyne) he quickly recovered and did not complain further that day.

On the 17th, after a good night, he felt so fully recovered that he visited a neighbor traveling by carriage, there held a conference, and returned home again later on foot accompanied by his coachman. During the return trip, however, he sustained another attack of pain so violent that he had to be entirely supported by his servant. Arriving home he rested, soon recovered, had supper, and slept as usual.

On the morning of the 18th, he sent a note to his physician, Dr. Fischer, and gave him an account of his health, requesting his advice. His appetite and digestion, he said, were quite unimpaired. Dr. Fischer prescribed a diaphoretic mixture to relieve what appeared to be gas, and the rest of the day and the succeeding night were spent comfortably.

On the 19th, he went to church and exerted himself in singing with the congregation. He then returned home, and almost at once experienced a dreadful pain in the region of his stomach. Dr. Fischer was called and arrived within one hour to find the paroxysm had almost completely subsided, but he noted that circulation was poor as evidenced by coldness of the extremities. In the afternoon the patient seemed improved, and by evening he felt so much better that he wanted to get up and join his family for dinner.

Early on the 20th, Dr. Fischer learned that his patient had passed a fairly good night, and that body functions seemed to have responded to the medication prescribed for his stomach. The patient, however, after sending off the messenger with this report, got out of bed, smoked a pipe, and began to walk about. The pain instantly returned accompanied by a paroxysm "with the rapidity of lightning." The doctor was at once called, arriving about ten o'clock. The patient's suffering subsided slowly and the doctor left at 11:30 - but he was at once re-summoned to find his patient in an awful agony "roaring for relief or death." After several heroic attempts to relieve his suffering, some of which were partially successful, the doctor again left. But the next morning, the 21st, he received the unexpected news that his patient had died very suddenly during the night.

Eighteen hours after death a post mortem examination was carried out. The sternum being removed, and the pericardium punctured, it having the appearance of being distended by a substance of dark blue colour, a quantity of reddish fluid escaped followed by bright red blood to the amount of two or three pounds. The pericardium was then opened up completely and the heart itself was found to be surrounded by a coagulum of more than three pounds in weight. When this was cleared away, a rupture was disclosed in the aortic ventricle. The heart was then removed entirely and the rupture was found to extend upwards about an inch and a half on the external surface while the internal rupture was about half an inch in length. This indicated that rupture was caused by excess pressure from the inside. According to the methods of tissue analysis then available, the heart tissue itself was otherwise found to be firm and healthy.

Whether this conclusion would be accepted in the light of present diagnostic technique is difficult to say. However, the subsequent discussion which followed the publication of Fischer's report showed that other similar cases of heart rupture were known where the heart tissue was in no way pathological. (276) A Dr. Portal is quoted as stating in two medical reports dated 1784 and 1794 that the aortic ventricle "commonly bursts without any previous weakening of the substance of the heart." And in the second of these reports, Portal quotes a certain Dr. Whytt as "having seen the heart burst from protracted grief" and therefore "not regarding the term broken heart in the light of a mere metaphor." (277) Dr. Portal also notes some authorities who do not believe that heart rupture can occur unless the heart has been subject to insidious inflammation or overburdened with excess adipose tissue. Heart rupture would then be the fatal termination of a previously existing morbid state. But as Dr. Fischer observed, such was clearly not the case in the instance of his report. Possibly rupture is not therefore fatal at once in a healthy heart but only in a diseased one. Fischer reported in this case "no morbid state of heart capable of diminishing its cohesive properties."

Survival for some hours or even some days would thus seem to be quite possible, though undoubtedly accompanied by considerable pain. Moreover, the protracted survival of Fischer's patient must be viewed in the light of his mature age (68 years), and we must assume therefore that in the case of the Lord Jesus who was still in the prime of life, emotional stress and not a diseased condition could have caused rupture if indeed rupture did occur. Fischer believed on the basis of all the evidence that rupture had "occurred gradually" over the previous few days. The first pains felt on the 16th he believed to have been due to the violent extension or aneurysm rather than actual rupture. Actual rupture probably occurred at the first devastating attack of pain while the subject was out walking on the 17th. That would mean that this particular individual survived heart rupture with a surprising amount of activity in the interval for about three days.

A number of other cases established by post mortem examination are cited in the follow-up of Dr. Fischer's article, in one of which the left ventricle was found to have ruptured in three places. Heart rupture was also reported as having occurred during sleep, although severe pain in the area had been experienced for some time previously.

From current literature one gathers that most authorities would now attach greater importance to pathological conditions than to sudden emotional stress, and in view of Stroud's fascinating conclusions regarding the case of Jesus, I think this fact has to be kept in mind. Krumbhaar and Crowell attribute rupture to coronary disease which has produced infarction and partial or complete aneurysm. Death is then said to be due to haemopericardium, i.e., infusion of blood into the pericardial sac. (278) Karsner observes that in haemopericardium from rupture of the heart wall, the intraventricular pressure is communicated directly to the pericardial sac. (279) This compresses intrapericardial pulmonary veins and also inhibits cardiac diastole. The result is usually rapidly fatal. It is referred to as cardiac tamponade. History is replete with cases of men who have died from this form of heart failure in their prime upon hearing shocking news. J. G. Zimmerman noted that Philip V of Spain died suddenly on learning of a major defeat of his army: and autopsy showed that his heart had ruptured in this way. (280) It seems highly likely that there are other examples if we had an adequate medical history of every individual whose death has been attributed to some form of heart failure.

Charles K. Friedberg, in his Diseases of the Heart, observes that rupture of the heart is "one of the commoner causes of sudden death" but only in the first two weeks after acute myocardial infarction. (281) Nearly 5% of one thousand consecutive cases of acute myocardial infarction confirmed at autopsy indicated death due to rupture. Much higher percentages (up to 19%) were reported by other investigators in 1960. In all such cases, rupture occurs at the point of infarction and usually while the infarcted area is still soft and freshly damaged. After some weeks it hardens somewhat and the patient is then likely to survive for some time. In mental institutions where hypertension is frequent, the incidence of rupture in acute myocardial infarction has been recorded as high as 73%, but this high relationship between hypertension and rupture has not been observed in a normal population. In all cases it is a general rule that rupture occurs only when previous degeneration of the heart tissue has occurred.

A suffusion of blood is commonly found in the pericardium in various amounts depending upon time of death, severity of rupture, and level of activity. It may exceed one liter (2.2 lbs.) but averages 250 c.c. (about 0.5 lbs.). Death may occur within a few minutes, but occasionally there is a survival period of a half hour to several hours. However, mention is made of survival in one instance for more than five years due to the formation over the rupture of fibrous pericardial adhesions.

While older reports seem to indicate cases of rupture in healthy hearts, the general consensus of opinion at the present time is that rupture only occurs where previous degeneration of heart tissue exists. The issue is crucial, if this is really the case, for it implies either that the Lord's heart had in this sense already "degenerated" and the Lamb was not therefore without blemish, or that the phenomenon of bloody sweat and the escape of "water and blood" from the wound on the cross must be explained in some other way. That the rule is not hard and fast, however, is suggested by Friedberg's remarks under a general heading Traumatic Heart Disease. (282) He observes: "There are instances of so-called spontaneous rupture, perforation or tear of a cardiac structure, in which physical strain may be a significant contributory factor." Yet if applied in the Lord's case, this would still not be the cause of death but merely an accompaniment. In other words, the Lord died with a broken heart perhaps but, in my view, not from it. To my mind the distinction is a real one and one of great importance.

The actual course of events in the case of rupture, considered from the purely physiological point of view, was many years ago very ably described by a Dr. Allan Burns who shows what happens to the blood escaping from the rupture into the enveloping pericardium. Newer, more recent, knowledge has not required any essential change of this descriptive paragraph. (283)

The immediate cause is a sudden and violent contraction of one of the ventricles, usually the left, on the column of blood thrown into it by a similar contraction of the corresponding auricle. Prevented from resuming backward by the intervening valve, and not finding a sufficient outlet forward in the connecting artery, the blood reacts against the ventricle itself which is consequently torn open at the point of greatest distention, or least resistance.

A quantity of blood is thereby discharged into the pericardium, and having no means of escape from that capsule, stops the circulation by compressing the heart from without and induces almost instantaneous death.

In young and vigorous subjects, the blood thus collected in the pericardium soon divides into its constituents parts, namely, a pale watery liquid called serum, and a soft clotted substance of a deep red colour termed crassamentum.

Now we are told in Luke 22:44 that in Gethsemane the agony of spirit which anticipation of the horror of the pending ordeal brought upon the Lord was so severe that, as it were, great drops of blood burst like sweat from his forehead and poured down his face. Luke, the physician, was the one who obtained this piece of information from some eye witness to the event. The disciples may not have been asleep at the beginning of Jesus' spiritual struggle but had fallen asleep by the time He returned to them after it was over. Luke may have received his information from one of them, for he certainly records it as though it was an eye witness account. He makes no effort to explain the phenomenon.

In Hebrews 5:7 we seem almost certainly to have a further reference to this event. We are told here that in the days of his flesh, the Lord offered up prayers and supplication: evidently under the stress of pending death and was heard and preserved at that time. This clearly cannot refer to his death a few hours later on the cross, since He could not possibly be spared from this if man was to be redeemed. What prospect of immediate death was He then preserved from if not death by heart rupture?

Certainly the Greek verb sodzo appearing here in the phrase "able to save him," often means "to preserve." Probable instances of this meaning in other places where the same word occurs will be found as follows: 1 Timothy 2:15, the preservation of the woman in childbearing; 1 Timothy 4:10, the Lord who preserves all men but takes particular care of the redeemed; 2 Timothy 4:18, Paul is preserved against every evil device brought against him. One might argue, therefore, that in Gethsemane the Lord's heart suffered a subacute rupture, and that the Lord Himself was fully aware of what had happened within his body. Certainly the form and functions of the human body were of his design in the first place and He was Himself the master Physician. There is no reason at all why He may not have correctly recognized the symptoms in his own case. It could be, therefore, that the trauma of anticipation of what was to be truly an awful spiritual and physical agony, was sufficient to rupture his otherwise perfectly sound heart, with fatal consequences to Himself and to his mission if death ensued prematurely as a result. He would have recognized this only too well.

The question then arises as to whether, if weakened by this serious internal wound, his frame would be able to sustain the ordeal that it was about to undergo. We have to remember that although He was made with the potential of unending life, that life could still be destroyed. If such an internal wound should prove fatal now, the whole plan of salvation - for which the Universe was created as a setting and to which all history had moved up to this moment - would have aborted.

Many commentators have habitually associated Hebrews 5:7 with the events of Gethsemane, as Barnes does for example, though he does not indicate any awareness of the possibility of heart rupture. (284) In response to the Lord's cry for help, an angel came to strengthen Him (Luke 22:43), a circumstance which suggests that the prayer was indeed for physical support, since it is most unlikely that He would appeal for spiritual help from an angel. Almost immediately after this appeal, the bloody sweat broke out on his forehead as though in confirmation of the internal injury which may have prompted his cry for help.

The significance of "sweating" blood as a physiological phenomenon is not clear, although a great deal is known about the sweating mechanism itself. It is referred to technically as haematridrosis. It has, however, been observed to be always associated with deep emotional stress. It was reported frequently enough in antiquity, during the Middle Ages, and even in modern times.

When a man's body overheats, several automatic corrective measures are at once initiated. These include an increased flow of blood through the vascular bed just below the skin surface, causing a sudden reddening or flushing, and resulting in a much greater transport of deep body heat via the blood fluid to the skin surface where it is radiated away if conditions permit. If this proves insufficient and body temperature continues to rise, then the sweat glands are triggered into activity. A very pure water, filtered from the blood vessels, is expressed via about two million sweat glands onto the skin surface where it evaporates and in so doing removes a quite remarkable store of heat very efficiently, provided that the surrounding air has the requisite capacity to absorb the water vapour. In conditions of high humidity it is therefore characteristically difficult to keep cool.

This filtrated water is one of the purest fluids in the body, since it contains a total of less than 1% of other substances such as uric acid, lactic acid, etc. Under normal circumstances this exudate contains no other blood components than water. However, under very great emotional stress, perhaps in part due to a rise in pulse rate and blood pressure, red blood cells may find their way into individual sweat glands, chiefly those which are under the control of the sympathetic nervous system - which the majority of sweat glands are not. The areas particularly involved here are the forehead, the axillary vaults (the arm pits), and some areas of the hands. The forehead region is especially involved, being for some reason highly supplied with sweat glands that are particularly active.

According to Shelley and Hurley, such colored sweat does not relate normally to a rise in body temperature but only to emotional stress. (285) The colored droplets are turbid and they suggest a possible connection with hysterical stigmata in the hands. Rothman, in his classic work on the biochemistry and physiology of the skin, believes that this form of sweating (which may also be found in the palm of the hand) probably accounts for the phenomenon associated with the well-known Theresa of Konnersreuth. (286) Bloody sweat has been reported also among primitive people, especially shamans from Siberia when seeking a state of ecstasy, as reported by Bogoras. (287) William Stroud refers to a number of works from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries in which are to be found case histories of men who, being condemned to death under unexpected circumstances, have broken out into a bloody sweat. (288) One young boy is mentioned who, having taken part in a crime for which two of his older brothers were hanged, was exhibited to public view under the gallows at the time and was thereupon observed to sweat blood from the exposed parts of his body (presumably his hands and his face). In a Commentary on the Four Gospels published in 1639 in Paris, Joannes Maldonatus refers to a robust and healthy man who had, on hearing a sentence of death passed upon him, been bathed in a bloody sweat. (289) In 1743 J. Schenck, in a work entitled Medical Observations, referred to the case of a nun who, falling into the hands of soldiers threatening her with instant death, was so terrified that "she discharged blood from every part of her body and died of hemorrhage." (290) In 1800 5. A. D. Tissot, in a work on the nervous system, referred to a sailor who was so alarmed by a storm that he collapsed, sweating blood from his face continuously throughout the whole episode. He mentions that the bloody sweat renewed itself like ordinary sweat as fast as it was wiped away. (291)

One of the best known and most famous examples is that of Charles IX of France, a monarch of great cruelty but also of great energy both in mind and body, who died of a similar cause in his 25th year. According to Voltaire, he suffered a fatal hemorrhage, the blood flowing from the pores of his skin. He expressed the opinion that it is usually the result either of excessive fear or of great passion. (292) In his Histoire d'France, the historian de Mezeray, refers to the same circumstance noting that it was on the 8th of May, 1574. (293) He says that in his last illness near the end, Charles was found on one occasion bathed in bloody sweat. There is an interesting discussion of this subject, from a purely medical point of view, in the work by Gould and Pyle to which reference has already been made. (294)

I would conclude, then, that while heart rupture may not have been the cause of the bloody sweat on the Lord's brow, extraordinary emotional stress might have been the common cause which lay behind both phenomena. The agony of Gethsemane was the agony of anticipation of the events which were about to transpire, and the effect of that agony upon the Lord's body may have been sufficient to cause both subacute heart rupture and bloody sweat. But I would go further and say also that heart rupture was, nevertheless, not the cause of the Lord's death on the cross. In Gethsemane his cry for help was heard and this injury was not permitted in the interval between Gethsemane and his death to anticipate the sacrifice of his life which He was to make voluntarily and in his own time.

Adding enormously as it must have done to the ordeal of all that He endured from the evening of his arrest to the moment when He dismissed his spirit by an act of will, and no doubt contributing largely to the sheer physical impossibility of carrying the crossbar of his own instrument of death to the place of execution, the Lord Jesus still did not succumb to death - did not die - because of heart rupture. He died perhaps with, but not because of, a broken heart, for the circumstance of the outflow of 'blood and water' (John 19:34) seems to indicate that the pericardium had indeed been pierced by the soldier's spear. Extravasated blood, which had escaped through what was perhaps a very small rupture, had accumulated and separated out into coagulum and serum. This could possibly account for a phenomenon which Scripture has seen fit to include in the record as a circumstance of significance. But his death was entirely of his own doing, not forced upon Him because of the failure of his heart. Sentiment might favour such a supposition, but I believe that theology demands recognition of something of greater consequence.

His death was in no sense a final collapse of the life support system of his body, but a glorious triumph of will, of spirit over body. On this supernatural fact Scripture has spoken unequivocally and with beautiful precision, as we have seen in Part IV, Chapter 32. These signs of possible rupture may serve perhaps to give us some idea of the awful prospect the Lord faced and the unimaginable burden it placed upon his nervous system and therefore also upon his heart. It could have been a literal fulfillment of Psalm 69:20, "Reproach hath broken my heart: and I am full of heaviness: and I looked for some to take pity but there was none: and for comforters, but I found none." "Could ye not watch with Me one hour?" (Matt. 26:40).

Corrections, May 22, 1997.

Proceed to References
Return to the Index Page
Return to Arthur Custance Home Page