If Penal Substitutionary Atonement is not True, what was, "this cup"?

[Alan Gross]

“And he went a little further, and fell on his face,
and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible,
let this cup pass from me:
nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.”

– This was not a show of fear.

Jesus had resisted sin all through his life
and now was to be made sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21).

21 For he hath made him to be sin for us,
who knew no sin;
that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

It was righteous for Him to desire not to become sin.

Drinking of this cup would mean becoming sin
and being separated from His Father.

He strove to resist becoming sin unto blood.

This is what the writer of Hebrews described as
the “contradiction of sinners against himself”

Heb. 12:3-4;
3 For consider him that endured
such contradiction of sinners against himself,
lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.

4 Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.

 

[Arthur King]

“And he went a little further, and fell on his face,
and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible,
let this cup pass from me:
nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.”

– This was not a show of fear.

Jesus had resisted sin all through his life
and now was to be made sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21).

21 For he hath made him to be sin for us,
who knew no sin;
that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

It was righteous for Him to desire not to become sin.

Drinking of this cup would mean becoming sin
and being separated from His Father.

He strove to resist becoming sin unto blood.

This is what the writer of Hebrews described as
the “contradiction of sinners against himself”

Heb. 12:3-4;
3 For consider him that endured
such contradiction of sinners against himself,
lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.

4 Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.

You mean the cup that is not substitutionary, because Jesus says of his disciples "“The cup that I drink you shall drink; and you shall be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized." Mark 10:39

You mean the cup that is not substitutionary because Israel herself drained the cup to the dregs, as Isaiah 51:17 says,
"Rouse yourself! Rouse yourself! Arise, O Jerusalem,
You who have drunk from the Lord’s hand the cup of His anger;
The chalice of reeling you have drained to the dregs."

 

[Alan Gross]

You mean the cup that is not substitutionary, because Jesus says of his disciples "“The cup that I drink you shall drink; and you shall be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized." Mark 10:39

Nope.

You mean the cup that is not substitutionary because Israel herself drained the cup to the dregs, as Isaiah 51:17 says,
"Rouse yourself! Rouse yourself! Arise, O Jerusalem,
You who have drunk from the Lord’s hand the cup of His anger;
The chalice of reeling you have drained to the dregs."

Nope, not at all.

 

[JonC]

“And he went a little further, and fell on his face,
and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible,
let this cup pass from me:
nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.”

– This was not a show of fear.

Jesus had resisted sin all through his life
and now was to be made sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21).

21 For he hath made him to be sin for us,
who knew no sin;
that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

It was righteous for Him to desire not to become sin.

Drinking of this cup would mean becoming sin
and being separated from His Father.

He strove to resist becoming sin unto blood.

This is what the writer of Hebrews described as
the “contradiction of sinners against himself”

Heb. 12:3-4;
3 For consider him that endured
such contradiction of sinners against himself,
lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.

4 Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.

The "cup" was that unjust suffering Jesus would experience on the cross. Remember, Jesus told His Disciples they would drink from that cup as well (and they did). If it was a cup of wrath instead of us then why did His disciples have to share it?

I mean, in God's Word Jesus actually tells the Disciples that they will also drink from that cup.

But you know what? They glorified God in their sufferings and deaths - as should we. Because He, suffering under the evil of this world, was glorified. He saves us not from death but through death - although we shall die, so also shall we live.

 

[DaveXR650]

You mean the cup that is not substitutionary, because Jesus says of his disciples "“The cup that I drink you shall drink; and you shall be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized." Mark 10:39

You mean the cup that is not substitutionary because Israel herself drained the cup to the dregs, as Isaiah 51:17 says,
"Rouse yourself! Rouse yourself! Arise, O Jerusalem,
You who have drunk from the Lord’s hand the cup of His anger;
The chalice of reeling you have drained to the dregs."

That's not a valid argument at all. Referring to what is going to happen to you as a "cup" had to be a known expression or else it would not have had any meaning. And the fact that most of the disciples would drink from the same cup just means the way they would suffer and die. You have no right to say that Jesus was referring to what he would do as far as atonement as having to be identical to what the disciples did when they died. No, everyone who ever died a hard death or everyone who suffered wrath from God was not performing a substitutionary atonement. The fact that Jesus was is still true though.

 

[DaveXR650]

The "cup" was that unjust suffering Jesus would experience on the cross. Remember, Jesus told His Disciples they would drink from that cup as well (and they did). If it was a cup of wrath instead of us then why did His disciples have to share it?

Once again. No one is saying that everyone who later died like Jesus did was accomplishing a substitutionary atonement - but Jesus was. Jon, maybe this would help. A lot of famous writers that we on here read say that there is obviously more going on here with Jesus than just a "normal" facing of death and pain. They say that there are plenty of martyrs who relished the thought of being torn apart by wild beasts as some of the early church fathers wrote. I was reading one the other day who said exactly that. Then there are those in Hebrews who desired to die in order to achieve a better resurrection. What they are saying is that Jesus almost appears to have a weaker constitution than some mere men - unless, he knew that what he was doing was more than a rough execution. If they are right that is another good argument for Jesus suffering the wrath and judgement of God as well as a difficult physical death.

 

[kyredneck]

“what was, "this cup"?
"And he went a little further, and fell on his face,
and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible,
let this cup pass from me:
nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.”

The cup was death:

7 Who in the days of his flesh, having offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and having been heard for his godly fear, Heb 5

God heard His supplication to be saved from death and raised Him from the dead.

<more>

 

[JonC]

Once again. No one is saying that everyone who later died like Jesus did was accomplishing a substitutionary atonement - but Jesus was. Jon, maybe this would help. A lot of famous writers that we on here read say that there is obviously more going on here with Jesus than just a "normal" facing of death and pain. They say that there are plenty of martyrs who relished the thought of being torn apart by wild beasts as some of the early church fathers wrote. I was reading one the other day who said exactly that. Then there are those in Hebrews who desired to die in order to achieve a better resurrection. What they are saying is that Jesus almost appears to have a weaker constitution than some mere men - unless, he knew that what he was doing was more than a rough execution. If they are right that is another good argument for Jesus suffering the wrath and judgement of God as well as a difficult physical death.

I know nobody is suggesting that. You are crossing discussions here (getting off the actual topic of my reply).

What was given as evidence that Jesus suffered God's wrath was His statement about "the cup" (the cup that the Disciples would also drink from).

It was assumed "the cup" was God's punishment. But that same verse states Jesus' disciples would drink from the same cup.

In other words, pointing to shared "the cup" as evidence of penal substitution is incorrect because it is shared. It is not dealing honestly with the text of Scripture.

In fact, it proves the opposite of what penal substitution theorists suggest precisely because Christ AND Christians drink from "the cup".

 

[Alan Gross]

The "cup" was that unjust suffering Jesus would experience on the cross. Remember, Jesus told His Disciples they would drink from that cup as well (and they did). If it was a cup of wrath instead of us then why did His disciples have to share it?

I see this, but it doesn't nail the cup down specifically on Jesus' part.

I mean, in God's Word Jesus actually tells the Disciples that they will also drink from that cup.

Yes, in a certain similar sense to Jesus, the Disciples drank the cup of death, but there is more of an extent to Jesus' death described that proves Jesus had my sins placed on Him, by imputation.

The cup was death:

7 Who in the days of his flesh, having offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and having been heard for his godly fear, Heb 5

This prayer to God to save Jesus from death was answered and God did save Jesus from death and raised Him from the dead because it had always been determined from Eternity Past.

from my brother: Hebrews 5:7 - Bible Verse Meaning and Commentary

"unto him that was able to save him from death;
from a corporeal death, as he could, but that it was otherwise determined; or rather to raise him from the dead, to deliver him from the state of the dead, from the power of death, and the grave, as he did; and so the Syriac version renders it, "to quicken him from death"; to restore him from death to life:

and was heard in that he feared;
or "by fear"; by God, who was the object of his fear, and who is called the fear of Isaac, ( Genesis 31:42 ) he was always heard by him, and so he was in the garden, and on the cross; and was carried through his sufferings, and was delivered from the fear of death, and was saved from the dominion and power of it, being raised from the dead by his Father


Jesus sweating blood

I see these and what you are saying. There is a clincher, however, that proves my sin was placed on Jesus which caused His death.

There is a quality in His death that Jesus experienced that was more extensive than the Disciples were said to be going to drink, as Jesus said when Jesus predicted their cup of death.

God heard His supplication to be saved from death and raised Him from the dead.

Jesus died and was buried. Jesus did not avert death in the flesh.

 

[DaveXR650]

What was given as evidence that Jesus suffered God's wrath was His statement about "the cup" (the cup that the Disciples would also drink from).

Well, there are two different passages. What I was going on about was from when Jesus was praying. His reaction to all this was more than facing a normal execution as preachers have said. Arthur then said that the "cup" always had to mean the same thing and posted other verses. My point was only that the cup was just a way of speaking, it didn't always mean a set thing.

 

[JonC]

Well, there are two different passages. What I was going on about was from when Jesus was praying. His reaction to all this was more than facing a normal execution as preachers have said. Arthur then said that the "cup" always had to mean the same thing and posted other verses. My point was only that the cup was just a way of speaking, it didn't always mean a set thing.

"The cup" simply means what is to come. It is the same when Jesus prayed that it could pass and that His disciples would share in it (I think that is obvious).

 

[JonC]

I see this, but it doesn't nail the cup down specifically on Jesus' part.



Yes, in a certain similar sense to Jesus, the Disciples drank the cup of death, but there is more of an extent to Jesus' death described that proves Jesus had my sins placed on Him, by imputation.



This prayer to God to save Jesus from death was answered and God did save Jesus from death and raised Him from the dead because it had always been determined from Eternity Past.

from my brother: Hebrews 5:7 - Bible Verse Meaning and Commentary

"unto him that was able to save him from death;
from a corporeal death, as he could, but that it was otherwise determined; or rather to raise him from the dead, to deliver him from the state of the dead, from the power of death, and the grave, as he did; and so the Syriac version renders it, "to quicken him from death"; to restore him from death to life:

and was heard in that he feared;
or "by fear"; by God, who was the object of his fear, and who is called the fear of Isaac, ( Genesis 31:42 ) he was always heard by him, and so he was in the garden, and on the cross; and was carried through his sufferings, and was delivered from the fear of death, and was saved from the dominion and power of it, being raised from the dead by his Father


Jesus sweating blood

I see these and what you are saying. There is a clincher, however, that proves my sin was placed on Jesus which caused His death.

There is a quality in His death that Jesus experienced that was more extensive than the Disciples were said to be going to drink, as Jesus said when Jesus predicted their cup of death.



Jesus died and was buried. Jesus did not avert death in the flesh.

It does not nail the cup down except that it is what would come and it is shared with Christians (His Disciples).

I agree - Christ died (and Christians die) under the "wages of sin", the "curse". It is a "shared cup", and the point of the Cross (reconciliation of man to God).

 

[DaveXR650]

"The cup" simply means what is to come. It is the same when Jesus prayed that it could pass and that His disciples would share in it (I think that is obvious).

Right. What was to come for Jesus was more than what was to come for some of the disciples. The use of the phrase "the cup" does not prove penal substitution nor is the argument valid that using "the cup" for those who did not do a penal substitution disproves penal substitution. We're off track. I think it is valid to think that the cup involves God's wrath in the passage Alan quoted to start with.

 

[JonC]

Right. What was to come for Jesus was more than what was to come for some of the disciples. The use of the phrase "the cup" does not prove penal substitution nor is the argument valid that using "the cup" for those who did not do a penal substitution disproves penal substitution. We're off track. I think it is valid to think that the cup involves God's wrath in the passage Alan quoted to start with.

I disagree. The reason is we are talking about the same cup (the suffering and death, the "violent hatred", the "evil") that Jesus was going to experience.

You can complain that Jesus speaking of "the cup" he was going to drink when facing the cross was different from "the cup" Jesus was going to drink when praying if there was another way than the cross to let it pass...but that is reaching.

 

[Alan Gross]

New thread: Bible Proof that MY SIN was Placed on Jesus by Penal Substitutionary Atonement.