Did Jesus experience a separation from God on the cross?

[agedman]

Jesus drank nothing. The gall mingled with wine : they forced the stuff upon his mouth and he had to taste--- but it says, "just the taste and it was undrinkable. So yes, Jesus might have <~spit~> the TASTE from his mouth or rather off his mouth.

The second was a pure act of hateful contempt to humiliate Christ. The instrument used, was used by soldiers for much baser ~healing and purifying~. Christ could not be debased further through human means, but He "TOOK" it like only God could in his deepest descent into the hell of his Suffering for sin.

First:
I would not suggest that the suffering of Christ was in any manner a part of the reconciliation God would look upon for sin. The BLOOD is what was to be shed, not the suffering. The suffering was the means that God chose for the blood to be shed, but EACH point of suffering there was blood letting. The bruising, the wounding, the scourging, all that pertains to the suffering of the cross was a manner of blood letting. It is the Blood that is to be the focus, for without the blood there is no redemption.

Second:
Though it may seem to some a small matter, Mark's account has the same person that got the sponge was the same that said the words of mockery.

Both Matthew and Mark state that the Lord Jesus drank. So there is no "rejection" or force the second time.

The first time there was an intoxicant added to the mixture. It was (according to some historical readings I did long ago) not unusual to prolong the torture and the crowd attention. But, Christ would never take an intoxicant into His being, then or ever.

The second time, was not an intoxicant, but vinegar. Vinegar was a common solution carried and used by the Roman soldiers to clean wounds, and sometimes used as a rub, or antiseptic.

There is no reading that Jesus "spit" this out, but that He drank.

Here is Mark's account:

When some of the bystanders heard it, they began saying, “Behold, He is calling for Elijah.” Someone ran and filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a reed, and gave Him a drink, saying, “Let us see whether Elijah will come to take Him down.” And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed His last.
​

Matthew's account only varies in that the mocking was done by others. Perhaps it is not disagreement between the accounts rather is showing how the mockery spread as ridicule usually well breads from one to another.

Here is Matthew's account:

Immediately one of them ran, and taking a sponge, he filled it with sour wine and put it on a reed, and gave Him a drink. But the rest of them said, “Let us see whether Elijah will come to save Him.”
​

Neither account has the Lord spitting out the vinegar or it being "forced" into his mouth.

Medically speaking, the second time, minutes before expiration, the typical sludge of the dying would have been rinsed so the final proclamation(s) of Christ could be both heard and understandable.

But folks don't have to take my word for it, they can well read the accounts and draw their own conclusions.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I hope that I am not ~suggesting~ anything. You put well just what the word means, and I believe, what Jesus meant it to mean. He did not ask his Father NOT to drink the cup; He asked Him ~to bring it on~. It was Jesus' sole desire and longing, will and delight, to do his Father's will.

What you deny is ~linguistically possible~, in fact is the obvious and most possible. ~Linguistically~ the meaning 'bring it on' is correct and simple.

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
[from 'Alice through the Looking Glass]

The Lord Jesus asked the Father if the cup might pass by Him. There is simply no getting around that.

When it comes to believing it, the difficulty begins. Unless Christ's HUMILIATION and SUFFERING the Passover of Yahweh is given one to believe, everything about it must look impossible.

What we are given to believe is that on a night when it was cold enough to need a fire in the high priest' courtyard (Luke 22:55), our Lord and Saviour sweated as it were great drops of blood. If we miss the fear and dread that must have been in His heart, we miss the glory of the cross, for He overcame them gloriously and triumphed in His humiliation.

 

[agedman]

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
[from 'Alice through the Looking Glass]

The Lord Jesus asked the Father if the cup might pass by Him. There is simply no getting around that.

What we are given to believe is that on a night when it was cold enough to need a fire in the high priest' courtyard (Luke 22:55), our Lord and Saviour sweated as it were great drops of blood. If we miss the fear and dread that must have been in His heart, we miss the glory of the cross, for He overcame them gloriously and triumphed in His humiliation.

Martin, I do like your way of thinking, and do not disagree that the Lord expressed dread when knowing what was coming. That is seen in the expressions that you mention and the physical reaction of hematohidrosis because of the extreme stress.

In my own musing, I also speculate that the stress seen is not all that is being experienced. Using Paul's statement of the battle raging both in this world and the heavenly, and that Daniels answer was delayed by confrontational force(s) of evil, it is not a stretch to consider our Lord was not merely contending over the flesh, but doing great battle in the spiritual realm with the forces of darkness.

However, I do not agree that there was fear in the Lord.

Fear is in some way always debilitating and hindering actions internally and usually externally. There is no display of fear, but of complete willingness and desire to complete the father's purpose. I would draw from the statements in the Scriptures that reflect that God give grace in our time of need that the believer may dread what lies before them. There is no grace in fear. Grace abides with faith and faithfulness.

That all posted, I am not uncomfortable sitting in an assembly in which a preacher waxes on about the matter and applies fear to the time of prayer in the garden. For most, they take a certain amount of fear into the realm of dread. It is that condition of the dual nature of humankind in which Christ did not have. He could express dread, but had no fear for He knew, far above any human capacity to grasp, what not only lay before Him, but the glory that awaited His return to the Father.

Personally, I do not fear death, but I dread what manner it may come, if it is not that peaceful passing in the sleep as a child may pray.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

First:

I would not suggest that the suffering of Christ was in any manner a part of the reconciliation God would look upon for sin.

Re:

<~I would not suggest that the suffering of Christ was in any manner a part of the reconciliation God would look upon for sin.~>


From God’s Eternal Council and Purpose, Jesus’ incarnation <~was … the reconciliation God would look upon for sin~>, and from Jesus’ conception through the Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary until his Resurrection in the flesh in and from the grave and the dead, in every ~part~ and in every ~manner~ and in every moment in time, was <~part of the reconciliation God would look upon for sin~>. God looked not “upon the ground” for Jesus’ blood, for no drop or taint of blood upon his face or body, as in any way the reconciliation for sin. But God looked upon his Son, in whose Life, He was well pleased as the atonement for sin. In the last analysis, God would look upon nothing else as a part of his ~reconciliation~ or atonement for sin, than the LIFE of Jesus Christ. When God “gave his only begotten Son” for an atonement or reconciliation of or for sin, it was the LIFE of Jesus He gave for an offering and sacrifice in the sinner’s place. And so, Jesus, poured out his LIFE, for sin. His Life was not in his blood, but his blood for an atonement of and for sin, was poured out in his Life.

 

[agedman]

Re:

<~I would not suggest that the suffering of Christ was in any manner a part of the reconciliation God would look upon for sin.~>


From God’s Eternal Council and Purpose, Jesus’ incarnation <~was … the reconciliation God would look upon for sin~>, and from Jesus’ conception through the Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary until his Resurrection in the flesh in and from the grave and the dead, in every ~part~ and in every ~manner~ and in every moment in time, was <~part of the reconciliation God would look upon for sin~>. God looked not “upon the ground” for Jesus’ blood, for no drop or taint of blood upon his face or body, as in any way the reconciliation for sin. But God looked upon his Son, in whose Life, He was well pleased as the atonement for sin. In the last analysis, God would look upon nothing else as a part of his ~reconciliation~ or atonement for sin, than the LIFE of Jesus Christ. When God “gave his only begotten Son” for an atonement or reconciliation of or for sin, it was the LIFE of Jesus He gave for an offering and sacrifice in the sinner’s place. And so, Jesus, poured out his LIFE, for sin. His Life was not in his blood, but his blood for an atonement of and for sin, was poured out in his Life.

"And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." Hebrews 9

I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. Galatians 2​

Christ shed His blood, and that is the basis of forgiveness in which God may reconcile the sinner.

That Christ died is true. HOW he died is of little importance, other than by example given to all believers that they too will be treated most unkindly by the world and worldly.

There are those who would make much of the suffering of Christ. I do not diminish that experience at all, but there is also much suffering throughout history by believers, some who endured at least as much physical suffering as Christ. That they endured such is further to be an example not only to believers but to those of the world.
Paul said in Romans 8:

"The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him."​

and later in that same area, Paul quote of the OT:

“For Your sake we are being put to death all day long;
We were considered as sheep to be slaughtered.​

However, do not consider that the MANNER of death in any fashion brought redemption or that the suffering of Christ in any way brought reconciliation.

That such extreme verbalizing upon the suffering of Christ is fit for emotionalism in which one would try to sway people not by the Word, but by enticing imagery and fleshly sentimentalism.

Christ shed his blood - for sure.
Christ suffered - most preciously His love was displayed.
Christ died - certainly.
Christ resurrected - He is the first fruits.
Christ returns - that is the promise with assurance.

That is the gospel.

 

[JonC]

From God’s Eternal Council and Purpose, Jesus’ incarnation <~was … the reconciliation God would look upon for sin~>, and from Jesus’ conception through the Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary until his Resurrection in the flesh in and from the grave and the dead, in every ~part~ and in every ~manner~ and in every moment in time, was <~part of the reconciliation God would look upon for sin~>. God looked not “upon the ground” for Jesus’ blood, for no drop or taint of blood upon his face or body, as in any way the reconciliation for sin. But God looked upon his Son, in whose Life, He was well pleased as the atonement for sin. In the last analysis, God would look upon nothing else as a part of his ~reconciliation~ or atonement for sin, than the LIFE of Jesus Christ. When God “gave his only begotten Son” for an atonement or reconciliation of or for sin, it was the LIFE of Jesus He gave for an offering and sacrifice in the sinner’s place. And so, Jesus, poured out his LIFE, for sin. His Life was not in his blood, but his blood for an atonement of and for sin, was poured out in his Life.

Amen and we'll stated.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The BLOOD is what was to be shed, not the suffering. The suffering was the means that God chose for the blood to be shed, but EACH point of suffering there was blood letting. The bruising, the wounding, the scourging, all that pertains to the suffering of the cross was a manner of blood letting. It is the Blood that is to be the focus, for without the blood there is no redemption.
.

Roman Catholicism, the blood-cult.

Jesus shed NO DROP OF BLOOD throughout all his suffering, throughout ANY point of suffering there was NO ~blood letting~; throughout all the hitting and lashing and shoving around and ~scourging~, there was NO ~bruising~, NO ~wounding~.

First you must show me the SCRIPTURES that Jesus bled; that the lashing pierced even as much as his clothes. No, after every effort made to wound Jesus, the guards would not part his garment because it was on every side and through the fabric, perfect and intact. Quote the SCRIPTURE therefore where you read it that Jesus lost as much as one drop of blood. He did not.

In the second place, Christ's "FLESH SAW NO CORRUPTION" IN HIS SUFFERING THE DEATH : OF DEATH. Christ's victory would have been no victory, but corruption; and the death of death no death, but victory, suffered Jesus the shedding of one molecule of his flesh or blood.

This bloody figure on the cross hung on every Catholic's neck is the image of his idol, dead and powerless; a curse!

In the third place,
To say <~all that pertains to the suffering of the cross was a manner of blood letting. It is the Blood that is to be the focus, for without the blood there is no redemption~> amounts to returning to the sacrificial system of the Old Testament times. Even the Scripture that is so regularly ABUSED, is about that old sacrificial system. It is unchristian and anti-Christ as much in Roman Catholicism as it is in Seventh-day Adventism.

 

[JonC]

Roman Catholicism, the blood-cult.

Jesus shed NO DROP OF BLOOD throughout all his suffering, throughout ANY point of suffering there was NO ~blood letting~; throughout all the hitting and lashing and shoving around and ~scourging~, there was NO ~bruising~, NO ~wounding~.

First you must show me the SCRIPTURES that Jesus bled; that the lashing pierced even as much as his clothes. No, after every effort made to wound Jesus, the guards would not part his garment because it was on every side and through the fabric, perfect and intact. Quote the SCRIPTURE therefore where you read it that Jesus lost as much as one drop of blood. He did not.

In the second place, Christ's "FLESH SAW NO CORRUPTION" IN HIS SUFFERING THE DEATH : OF DEATH. Christ's victory would have been no victory, but corruption; and the death of death no death, but victory, suffered Jesus the shedding of one molecule of his flesh or blood.

This bloody figure on the cross hung on every Catholic's neck is the image of his idol, dead and powerless; a curse!

In the third place,
To say <~all that pertains to the suffering of the cross was a manner of blood letting. It is the Blood that is to be the focus, for without the blood there is no redemption~> amounts to returning to the sacrificial system of the Old Testament times. Even the Scripture that is so regularly ABUSED, is about that old sacrificial system. It is unchristian and anti-Christ as much in Roman Catholicism as it is in Seventh-day Adventism.

I agree with your first statement as Scripture points to more than the events of the cross as reconciliation. But here you seem to deny what your last post affirmed.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

"And according to the Law,one mayalmostsay, all things are cleansed with blood, andwithout shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." Hebrews 9

I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and thelifewhich I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me andgave Himself up for me. Galatians 2


Christ shed His blood,and that is the basis of forgiveness in which God may reconcile the sinner.

That Christ died is true.HOW he died is of little importance, other than by example given to all believers that they too will be treated most unkindly by the world and worldly.

Allegorising

and

Contradicting the Scriptures … "And according to the LAW,all things are cleansed with blood, andwithout shedding of blood there is no forgiveness according to the LAW." Hebrews 9

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I agree with your first statement as Scripture points to more than the events of the cross as reconciliation. But here you seem to deny what your last post affirmed.

Please let me know when it has become clear to you how I <~seem to deny what (my) last post affirmed~>.

 

[JonC]

Please let me know when it has become clear to you how I <~seem to deny what (my) last post affirmed~>.

It became clear to me just after I read the last word.

I appreciated the focus you placed on Jesus act of atonement being his life en toto rather than focusing on the events of the cross alone. But with your last post you seem to diminish this life of obedience as man. There was a reason Jesus, while on the cross, directed our focus on Ps 22.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

That such extreme verbalizing upon the suffering of Christ is fit for emotionalism in which one would try to sway people not by the Word, but by enticing imagery and fleshly sentimentalism.

WHERE do you read the following, on the cross, or where Christ suffered?

John 11:33
Toe Jesus haar en die geklaag en saam met haar
Ἰησοῦς οὖν ὡς εἶδεν αὐτὴν κλαίουσαν καὶ τοὺς συνελθόντας αὐτῇ
When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping
die kermende Jode sien, kreun Hy in sy siel en onstel
Ἰουδαίους κλαίοντας ἐνεβριμήσατο τῷ πνεύματι καὶ ἐτάραξεν
which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled,
John 12:27
27 Nou is my siel ontsteld, en wat sal Ek sê? Vader, verlos My
νῦν ἡ ψυχή μου τετάρακται, καὶ τί εἴπω; Πάτερ, σῶσόν με
Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me
omrede en deur hierdie uur?— want net daarom het Ek
ἐκ τῆς ὥρας ταύτης· ἀλλὰ διὰ τοῦτο ἦλθον
from this hour: but for this cause came I
hierdie uur tegemoetgegaan. 28 Vader, verheerlik U, u Naam.
εἰς τὴν ὥραν ταύτην.28 Πάτερ, δόξασόν σου τὸ ὄνομα.
unto this hour. 28 Father, glorify thy name.

Mark 14:33
33 Toe neem Hy Petrus en Jakobus en Johannes saam met Hom
καὶ παραλαμβάνει τὸν Πέτρον καὶ Ἰάκωβον καὶ Ἰωάνην μετ’ αὐτοῦ,
And he taketh with him Peter and James and John,
en begin erg ontsteld en terneergedruk raak.
καὶ ἤρξατο ἐκθαμβεῖσθαι καὶ ἀδημονεῖν,
and began to be sore perplexed, and distressed;
34 En Hy sê vir hulle: My siel is smartvol tot die dood toe.
καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς Περίλυπός ἐστιν ἡ ψυχή μου ἕως θανάτου·
And he saith unto them, exceeding unto death sorrowful is My soul:
Matthew 27:37
37 Toe vat Hy Petrus en Jakobus en Johannes saam met Hom.
καὶ παραλαβὼν τὸν Πέτρον καὶ τοὺς δύο υἱοὺς Ζεβεδαίου
And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee,
Hy het begin bedroef en benoud raak.
(καὶ) ἤρξατο λυπεῖσθαι καὶ ἀδημονεῖν.
and began to be sorrowful and very heavy.
38 Toe sê Jesus vir hulle: My siel is oorvol smart
τότε λέγει αὐτοῖς Περίλυπός ἐστιν ἡ ψυχή μου
Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful,

Is ~that the Gospel~, or, <~enticing imagery and fleshly sentimentalism~>

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

It became clear to me just after I read the last word.

I appreciated the focus you placed on Jesus act of atonement being his life en toto rather than focusing on the events of the cross alone. But with your last post you seem to diminish this life of obedience as man. There was a reason Jesus, while on the cross, directed our focus on Ps 22.

Rephrased,
Please let me know when it will have become clear to you, because you say it as yet has not become clear to you.

Are you related to RStrats?

 

[JonC]

Rephrased,
Please let me know when it will have become clear to you, because you say it as yet has not become clear to you.

Are you related to RStrats?

I don't know RStrats.

James Fowler once wrote that the work of “Jesus Christ is based upon the person of Jesus Christ. His sinless spiritual condition and behavioral expression made His sacrifice sufficient for mankind. He could be ‘perfect in benefit’ because He was ‘perfect in being’ and ‘perfect in behavior.’

Theological considerations must avoid positing Christ’s work only in terms of ‘benefits.’ To do so creates an overly objectified disjuncture of the work of Jesus Christ from the living person of Jesus Christ. His work must not be divorced from His person, and reduced into static commodities or ‘benefits’ to mankind. The effects or benefits of the work of Jesus Christ are encompassed in His being. The ontological dynamic of the work of Christ must be recognized. He did what He did, and does what He does, because He is who He is. All of His acts are inherent in His Being” (Concepts and Models of the Atonement).

I understood your post that I initially quoted (and agreed with the content) to be along this line. The Atonement is not the cross, it is the Father giving His Son from the Incarnation to the Resurrection. Reconciliation is not a product of the Cross. Indeed, Paul focuses on the Resurrection much more than the cross. But it is this whole life poured out for mankind.

Then I read in your second post a denial of the incarnation and this reconciliation all together, that Jesus is apart from man and apart from reconciling mankind as he is somehow void of what it means to suffer as man. I admit, however, that I may have misunderstood you here (or there). But if anyone ever doubts that Jesus suffered on the cross, Psalm 22 should remedy that misunderstanding.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I don't know RStrats.

James Fowler once wrote that the work of “Jesus Christ is based upon the person of Jesus Christ. His sinless spiritual condition and behavioral expression made His sacrifice sufficient for mankind. He could be ‘perfect in benefit’ because He was ‘perfect in being’ and ‘perfect in behavior.’

Theological considerations must avoid positing Christ’s work only in terms of ‘benefits.’ To do so creates an overly objectified disjuncture of the work of Jesus Christ from the living person of Jesus Christ. His work must not be divorced from His person, and reduced into static commodities or ‘benefits’ to mankind. The effects or benefits of the work of Jesus Christ are encompassed in His being. The ontological dynamic of the work of Christ must be recognized. He did what He did, and does what He does, because He is who He is. All of His acts are inherent in His Being” (Concepts and Models of the Atonement).

I understood your post that I initially quoted (and agreed with the content) to be along this line. The Atonement is not the cross, it is the Father giving His Son from the Incarnation to the Resurrection. Reconciliation is not a product of the Cross. Indeed, Paul focuses on the Resurrection much more than the cross. But it is this whole life poured out for mankind.

Then I read in your second post a denial of the incarnation and this reconciliation all together, that Jesus is apart from man and apart from reconciling mankind as he is somehow void of what it means to suffer as man. I admit, however, that I may have misunderstood you here (or there). But if anyone ever doubts that Jesus suffered on the cross, Psalm 22 should remedy that misunderstanding.

If all posts were like yours, it would have been a better world and perhaps, just perhaps, we might all have come to the unity of Faith. God bless you.

Please read my next post hereafter DV.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I understood your post that I initially quoted (and agreed with the content) to be along this line. The Atonement is not the cross, it is the Father giving His Son from the Incarnation to the Resurrection. Reconciliation is not a product of the Cross. Indeed, Paul focuses on the Resurrection much more than the cross. But it is this whole life poured out for mankind.

The cross alone—you’re right—is not the Atonement. The Atonement fully, <~is the Father giving His Son from the Incarnation to the Resurrection~>. But the cross is Jesus, finally giving into his Father’s hands, the Reconciliation—HIMSELF—his LIFE! The cross was the, <~product~>, i.e., <~The Atonement~>. But again—you’re right—, it was<~this whole life poured out for mankind~> which saves to the uttermost because He <~this whole life~> long,suffered the uttermost “pains of death” : ALIVE, WILLING, DESIRING, STRIVING earnestly : “TO DO THY WILL, O GOD” … nowhere more so than “on the first day they REMOVED” the “Leaven” of his Life “and KILLED the Passover” of Yahweh.

The “night and day”, “on the fourteenth day of the First Month for you, o Israel”, was Jesus’ crossing of the Rubicon, “going over the Kidron—Dark Blood River”. “This That Selfsame Whole-Night” of Jesus’ “BONE-Day”, was of the “substance and essence”, of his <~whole life~>— his whole life and Eternity before it, concentrated into the “ONE AND TERRIBLE DAY OF THE LORD”.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

There is no reading that Jesus "spit" this out, but that He drank.

John19:29,30a

σκεῦος ἔκειτο ὄξους μεστόν· σπόγγον οὖν μεστὸν τοῦὄξους

(KJ)Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge

(GE) A pot of vinegar, then a spunge dipped in the same


ὑσσώπῳ περιθέντες προσήνεγκαν αὐτοῦ τῷ στόματι.
(KJ)with vinegar and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.

(GE) wrapped onto a stick was used to bring it to his mouth


It is not written that Jesus <~drank~>


Mark15:36

δραμὼν δέ τις καὶ γεμίσας σπόγγον ὄξους περιθεὶς καλάμῳ ἐπότιζεν αὐτόν, λέγων Ἄφετε

(KJ)And the one ran and filled a spunge full of vinegar,

and put it and gave him to drink, saying, saying, Let alone!


(GE) Then one came running with a sponge of vinegar and on a reed (literally) him drank.
The two words ἐπότιζεν αὐτόν are impossible literally isolated. ‘auton’ – ‘him’ (Accusative) ‘epotidzen’ – “he drank” (demanding a Nominative) the idea must be added, like in the KJV, “_gave_ him _to_, drink”.

It is not written that Jesus <~drank~>

Matteus27:48,49
καὶ εὐθέως δραμὼν εἷς ἐξ αὐτῶν καὶ λαβὼν
And straightway one of them ran, and took

σπόγγον πλήσας τε ὄξους καὶ περιθεὶς καλάμῳ
a spunge ...filled with vinegar ...put around a reed

ἐπότιζεν αὐτόν.49 οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ εἶπαν Ἄφες·

and gave him to drink.49The rest said, Let be,

The KJV is correct, having translated, "_gave_ him _to drink_".


It is not written that Jesus <~drank~>

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The Lord Jesus asked the Father if the cup might pass by Him. There is simply no getting around that.

There is simply no getting around the fact Jesus did not ask the Father that the cup might pass Him by. Jesus prayed the Father that his, Jesus', drinking and emptying the cup must be his Father's will rather than his own will, fulfilled.

Jesus therefore prayed his Father, "Let this cup come past Me -- 'Bring it on' --, YOUR will be done, not mine" as if mine is not your will.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed. As for the shedding of Our Lord's blood, please see John 19:34

But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.