Jesus in the garden. what was 'the cup'?

[fortytworc]

What was this cup that Jesus asked to be able to bypass?

 

[savedbymercy]

The punishment He must endure for the sins of God's Elect. The cup signified that all their particular sins had been measured to the extent that exact Justice would be meted out for their sins alone !

 

[revmwc]

From my post in Baptist Theology and Bible Study.

The standard teaching and I haven't figured out why is that When Jesus prayed that night in the Garden, in Mat. 26:
38Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.

39And he went a little farther, 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.

40And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour?


Mark 14:
34And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch.

35And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him.

36And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.

Luke 22:

41And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,

42Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

43And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.
44And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground

Each of these is taught that Jesus was asking not to go to the cross, I have heard this teaching for many years. Yet scripture if you look to it doesn't bare this teaching out.

First look at the Mat. 26:38 and Mark 14:34 both say Christ was sorrowful to death. He was in great agony and stress close to death. Matthew 26:39 and Mark 14:35 say He fell on the ground while Luke says He knelt, again a sign of the stress and anguish He was suffering. Luke 22:44 says He was sweating drops of blood this is a condition that is called from stress on the capilaries in the forhead.
So again why would anyone see this as His asking not to go to the cross being the cup? The cup represents death that is for sure but these passage seems to indicate a death in the garden from the strss and pressures on His body. Then we have a passage that says His prayer was heard that night,

Hebrews 5:7Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;

Notice what it says Jesus in the days of His flessh, "offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death" and we are told "and was heard in that he feared" His prayer was Heard. the greek Eisakouo is used here for heard, this word means:

1.to give heed to, comply with admonition, to obey
2.to listen to, assent to, a request, to be heard, have request granted
a.of persons offering prayers to God
b.of prayers offered up

God complied with His prayer, the only time we see scripture say Jesus prayed this way was that night in the Garden and His prayer was answered, death in the Garden was taken from Him and in Luke 22:43 we are an Angel came from heaven and strengthened Him. There is Father having heard and complied with Christ prayer of don't let me die here in the Garden and God sent an Angel to strengthen Him, His disciple were sleeping when He needed them most, but His Father heard and answered His prayer. Thank God He hears us and answers or prayers 24-7 just as He did His sons that night.

 

[fortytworc]

I believe that in praying with such tremendous intensity both physically and in His spirit (the likes of which i will probably never witness) Jesus was asking two things of the Father. First I will lay some groundwork.
If I am to believe the orthodox view of the Godhead as being a Trinity I Must believe He is FULLY God and FULLY man. He isn’t a god/man. There does not exist “the part of Him that was God” and “the part of Him that was a man.” I think we can agree on that.
Second piece of groundwork is ; What was happening when He cried out "My God! My God! Why hast Thou forsaken me?!"
Like any man He wanted to be able to bypass the tremendously excruciating physical pain scheduled for Him on His way to the ALTER of the cross. He submitted His will on this matter to God the Father.
Like the Only begotten Son of God; from eternity past, existing as perfectly and wholly God He did not want to arrive at any place short of perfect Oneness, Unity and Harmony. He agreed with the Elohim that was Himself to know a distance which He had never known.
The first Adam (fully human, created with no sin nature) chose to sin. This brought about an immediate wall of separation between Adam, Eve, God, all humanity and all of nature. The Second Adam (fully human, born without a sinful nature) chose to BECOME sin in order to reconcile us back to God. He did not commit any sin, but He became sin. In taking on the sin of the world, He felt the full brunt of what happened in the garden. He finally knew the darkness, the nakedness, the fear the first Adam (by his own choice) felt. Jesus then (by His own choice) became the Second Adam. At that moment, He became fully aware of His full humanity. Since Jesus had always been One with the Father the sudden pain of experiencing any barrier in that unity was felt, and realized with such force that He could only express it by quoting Psalm 22.
Anticipating this fracture is what finally explains Jesus’ request in Luke 22:42 “Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me.” When more details of Jesus prayer in Gethsemane are presented in John17 (which speak frequently about the Oneness of the Godhead), it is easily seen that “this cup” was the total agony of distance in relationship with the Father experienced by Adam and Eve; the one thing He had never known up to that point in time. To teach that the cup was the physical pain of crucifixion alone makes no sense to me. It contradicts everything about the purpose of the Incarnation, all prophecies concerning His first coming, as well as Jesus’ own knowledge of why He came to Earth as a man. In addition, the fact that “And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem.” Luke 9:51. His request was not primarily a request to be able to back out on His physical suffering. He did not want to feel separated from the Father and the Spirit with whom He had always been One.

 

[JonC]

I believe that in praying with such tremendous intensity both physically and in His spirit (the likes of which i will probably never witness) Jesus was asking two things of the Father. First I will lay some groundwork.
If I am to believe the orthodox view of the Godhead as being a Trinity I Must believe He is FULLY God and FULLY man. He isn’t a god/man. There does not exist “the part of Him that was God” and “the part of Him that was a man.” I think we can agree on that.
Second piece of groundwork is ; What was happening when He cried out "My God! My God! Why hast Thou forsaken me?!"
Like any man He wanted to be able to bypass the tremendously excruciating physical pain scheduled for Him on His way to the ALTER of the cross. He submitted His will on this matter to God the Father.
Like the Only begotten Son of God; from eternity past, existing as perfectly and wholly God He did not want to arrive at any place short of perfect Oneness, Unity and Harmony. He agreed with the Elohim that was Himself to know a distance which He had never known.
The first Adam (fully human, created with no sin nature) chose to sin. This brought about an immediate wall of separation between Adam, Eve, God, all humanity and all of nature. The Second Adam (fully human, born without a sinful nature) chose to BECOME sin in order to reconcile us back to God. He did not commit any sin, but He became sin. In taking on the sin of the world, He felt the full brunt of what happened in the garden. He finally knew the darkness, the nakedness, the fear the first Adam (by his own choice) felt. Jesus then (by His own choice) became the Second Adam. At that moment, He became fully aware of His full humanity. Since Jesus had always been One with the Father the sudden pain of experiencing any barrier in that unity was felt, and realized with such force that He could only express it by quoting Psalm 22.
Anticipating this fracture is what finally explains Jesus’ request in Luke 22:42 “Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me.” When more details of Jesus prayer in Gethsemane are presented in John17 (which speak frequently about the Oneness of the Godhead), it is easily seen that “this cup” was the total agony of distance in relationship with the Father experienced by Adam and Eve; the one thing He had never known up to that point in time. To teach that the cup was the physical pain of crucifixion alone makes no sense to me. It contradicts everything about the purpose of the Incarnation, all prophecies concerning His first coming, as well as Jesus’ own knowledge of why He came to Earth as a man. In addition, the fact that “And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem.” Luke 9:51. His request was not primarily a request to be able to back out on His physical suffering. He did not want to feel separated from the Father and the Spirit with whom He had always been One.

I think that this is a good explanation. The “cup” is the work of Christ on the cross. I do think that it probably includes the physical pain, suffering and death (Jesus was fully human), but also incorporates the totality of His work. The sacrifice of Christ is self-sacrifice, and there is no other way.

 

[billwald]

>The “cup” is the work of Christ on the cross

INTERESTING! Being a victim is (doing a) "work?" If being passive is a (good) work then why is "accepting, inviting" Jesus also not a good work???

I am not asked for ID when I add cash to my bank account. If I had your deposit slip I could deposit cash, say under a hundred bucks, to your bank account, right? If you discovered a $100 deposit from an unknown source you could not return or refuse it?

 

[fortytworc]

>The “cup” is the work of Christ on the cross

INTERESTING! Being a victim is (doing a) "work?" If being passive is a (good) work then why is "accepting, inviting" Jesus also not a good work???

I am not asked for ID when I add cash to my bank account. If I had your deposit slip I could deposit cash, say under a hundred bucks, to your bank account, right? If you discovered a $100 deposit from an unknown source you could not return or refuse it?

I am not sure I understand you response or its application here. It is not my understanding that Jesus was a passive victim.

 

[fortytworc]

Something I forgot....billwald : I'll keep the $100.00 whenever you decide to send it.

 

[percho]

But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.

What is the difference between that in bold from that underlined?

 

[fortytworc]

But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.

What is the difference between that in bold from that underlined?

I think you will find that the 'cup' is oterion
pot-ay'-ree-on
used as a metaphor for "one's lot or experience". So Jesus appears to be speaking of them going through at least a similar anguish and suffering that He himself would experience; physically, and emotionally.
...be baptized : Baptizo
bap-tid'-zo To dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge
to overwhelm
with the baptism...Baptisma
bap'-tis-mah : of John's (the baptist) baptism, that purification rite by which men on confessing their sins were bound to spiritual reformation, obtained the pardon of their past sins and became qualified for the benefits of the Messiah's kingdom soon to be set up.
The first is what we call baptism (I know all of you are quite knowledgeable on this). It speaks of our real identification and union with Jesus. This baptism should 'overwhelm' us and bring real, permanent change in us. It is the same word;therefore, experience Paul spoke of in Romans 6:3 This is not just a symbolic act of obedience. It should bring actual change into our lives.
The second speaks of a purification rite as stated above. and frankly I don't know how this fits into Jesus experience in this context. I know He was overwhelmed and forever changed in becoming sin for us, and all that that entailed. So, it seems Jesus was asking if they were able to receive the experience and permanent change in their lives the way He would. (I am not a Hebrew or Greek scholar,and really hesitate doing what I did in this post. Many of you will run circles around me in this area. I may be asking to be surrounded by sharks that smell fresh blood. So be it.) It does seem obvious that those disciples did not know what the cost would be.

 

[The Biblicist]

What was this cup that Jesus asked to be able to bypass?

Partaking of the cup was becoming what he resisted all through his life - becoming sin. It is what the writer of hebrews describes as becoming a "contradiction of sinners against himself" (Heb. 12:3). He was "made to be sin" that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.

The baptism he was baptized with is the suffering in becoming sin for us.

Hence, he could righteously pray that the Father remove the cup if it were possible as it is a righteous thing to resist becoming sin. Yet this was the "contradiction of sinners against himself" (Heb. 12:3) he must be made sin to defeat sin.

 

[percho]

Partaking of the cup was becoming what he resisted all through his life - becoming sin. It is what the writer of hebrews describes as becoming a "contradiction of sinners against himself" (Heb. 12:3). He was "made to be sin" that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.

The baptism he was baptized with is the suffering in becoming sin for us.

Hence, he could righteously pray that the Father remove the cup if it were possible as it is a righteous thing to resist becoming sin. Yet this was the "contradiction of sinners against himself" (Heb. 12:3) he must be made sin to defeat sin.

For some reason I went to sleep last night thinking about this post and came to the conclusion I disagree because;

But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?

They answered: They say unto him, We are able.

His response: Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with:


Would your thought not mean we also would be, becoming sin, when we in reality have sinned almost from birth?

What I find interesting is there is the cup and then there is the baptism. One following the other whether it be Jesus or it be the disciples.

What is being spoken of here and is the cup here the same cup as in the cup in the garden?

 

[The Biblicist]

For some reason I went to sleep last night thinking about this post and came to the conclusion I disagree because;

But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?

They answered: They say unto him, We are able.

His response: Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with:


Would your thought not mean we also would be, becoming sin, when we in reality have sinned almost from birth?

What I find interesting is there is the cup and then there is the baptism. One following the other whether it be Jesus or it be the disciples.

What is being spoken of here and is the cup here the same cup as in the cup in the garden?

Christ died on the cross for sin. We are commanded to take up our cross and die daily. That does not mean we die "for sin" as Christ did on the cross but die "to" sin in our own lives by self-crucifixion or death to self. The language is the same but the application is different. Christ took up his cross for one purpose and we take up the cross for another purpose. He took up the cross to pay for sin by being made sin. We pick up the cross to die to self and to sin and our suffering is a result of identifying with Him and His righteousness.

Likewise, drinking of the cup does not have the same application to the disciples as it does Christ. Christ drank of the cup in becoming sin for us and suffering for our sins. We drink of the cup in identifying with Christ and His righteousness and our life against sin.

 

[billwald]

>I am not sure I understand you response or its application here. It is not my understanding that Jesus was a passive victim.

Then Jesus committed "suicide by cop?"

 

[The Biblicist]

>I am not sure I understand you response or its application here. It is not my understanding that Jesus was a passive victim.

Then Jesus committed "suicide by cop?"

The first passage is a cup and suffering that Jesus said the disciples would share.

The second cup is one the disciples did not share as they fled the scene but only Christ drank of.

Hence, the same langauge is used but different applications.

Jesus laid down his life willingly as even He stated that all he could have called ten thousand angels to his defense if he so chose. He was passive by choice but not a victim.

 

[percho]

Christ died on the cross for sin. We are commanded to take up our cross and die daily. That does not mean we die "for sin" as Christ did on the cross but die "to" sin in our own lives by self-crucifixion or death to self. The language is the same but the application is different. Christ took up his cross for one purpose and we take up the cross for another purpose. He took up the cross to pay for sin by being made sin. We pick up the cross to die to self and to sin and our suffering is a result of identifying with Him and His righteousness.

Likewise, drinking of the cup does not have the same application to the disciples as it does Christ. Christ drank of the cup in becoming sin for us and suffering for our sins. We drink of the cup in identifying with Christ and His righteousness and our life against sin.

Luke 22:42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
Matt 20:22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?


In your opinion, are these the same cup relative to Jesus?

Also I would be just as interested in your opinion as to the difference as to what the cup is in M20:22 as to what the baptism is.

I would assume you will say the cup is him becoming sin therefore what is the baptism?

 

[The Biblicist]

Luke 22:42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
Matt 20:22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?


In your opinion, are these the same cup relative to Jesus?

Also I would be just as interested in your opinion as to the difference as to what the cup is in M20:22 as to what the baptism is.

I would assume you will say the cup is him becoming sin therefore what is the baptism?

Note the differences. Matthew 20:22 is a cup and suffering that Jesus predicts the apostles will drink and be baptized with. However, they did not drink of the cup or were baptized with the suffering in Luke 22:42 because they all fled or denied Christ. Hence, the language is the same but the application is not the same.

The cup in Luke 22:42 that jesus drank is the cup of sin - being made sin for us. This is the "contradiction against sinners" that he endured on the cross.

His suffering on the Cross is two dimensional. He suffered for our sins. However, he also suffered at the hands of men for his righteousness. They did not kill him because of any sin found in him but because they hated him "without a cause."

It is the second human hatred dimension that the apostles would identify with Christ and suffer but not the divine dimension - propitiation for sin.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

"

What was this cup that Jesus asked to be able to bypass?

GE:

First, This is really a difficult way for presenting your question?!

"With DESIRE I DESIRED to eat: THIS PASSOVER" himself "our Passover" and "Lamb of God".

Anyway,

Read Klaas Schilder's Trilogy 'Christ in his Suffering', THE BEST OF THE BEST OF THE BEST!
This work changed my life, and set me off on a long and wonderful road of discovery!

My old schoolmate once asked me, If you were to be left stranded on your own on an island, but could take one book with you, which would it be? I didn't hesitate to answer, Klaas Schilder!

One of my greatest discoveries however, I must thank my wonderful wife for. She has a job to get me away from my desk! That day, she invited me for a cup of coffee nearby. On a sugar sachet for my cup of coffee, I found this jewel: 'Discovery is to see what everyone all along has seen, then to THINK what no one else has thought.'

Apply this golden advice to the question of this discussion, AND SEE!

"Behold a man named Joseph!" "Behold there was a great earthquake!" et al ... 'KAI IDOU', literally, 'See!' as opened the blind's eye to see a wonderland!

So was it for me, reading the Gospel, while I read Schilder.

Here is what everybody has been reading, but few realised they read!

"My hour is come"; "Behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me RIGHT WITH me! ON THE TABLE! And TRULY, the Son of Man GOES: AS IT WAS DETERMINED ... HE IS, BETRAYED!"

We confess the Faith of Jesus ... "Who is descended into hell."

Yes! Jesus' incarnation already is his descent into hell begun; his last passover and final descent into the abyss, STARTS HERE: Mark 14:12,17 Matthew 26:17,20 Luke 22:7,14 John 13:1,30 1Corinthians 11:23.

It ENDS, HERE: Mark 15:33,34 Matthew 27:50 Luke 23:46 John 19:30, "FINISHED!"

AT THIS MOMENT, "the graves opened", and "the veil was rent" and the most holy place of the sanctuary, "THE ARK OF THE TESTIMONY, WAS OPENED", as all hell was EMPTIED and Jesus "yielded up the spirit" and "commended" it into his Father's hands.

HERE, says Klaas Schilder, and CONFIRMS, the Apostolicum, Christ EXITED his Suffering. “The death of death in the death of Christ.” (John Owen) NOW, "Christ in it - HELL - TRIUMPHED!" Colossians 2:15.

After THIS, the EXALTATION of Christ, immediately, BEGINS.


Who would have thought, hell was "in the Kingdom of my Father" WHERE Jesus overcame it and FROM SATAN'S HAND, wrested "the keys of hell / death and of life"?!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Note the differences. Matthew 20:22 is a cup and suffering that Jesus predicts the apostles will drink and be baptized with. However, they did not drink of the cup or were baptized with the suffering in Luke 22:42 because they all fled or denied Christ. Hence, the language is the same but the application is not the same.

The cup in Luke 22:42 that jesus drank is the cup of sin - being made sin for us. This is the "contradiction against sinners" that he endured on the cross.

His suffering on the Cross is two dimensional. He suffered for our sins. However, he also suffered at the hands of men for his righteousness. They did not kill him because of any sin found in him but because they hated him "without a cause."

It is the second human hatred dimension that the apostles would identify with Christ and suffer but not the divine dimension - propitiation for sin.

GE:

Thank God!

You say it SO WELL!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The first passage is a cup and suffering that Jesus said the disciples would share.

The second cup is one the disciples did not share as they fled the scene but only Christ drank of.

Hence, the same langauge is used but different applications.

Jesus laid down his life willingly as even He stated that all he could have called ten thousand angels to his defense if he so chose. He was passive by choice but not a victim.

GE:

I absolutely agree!

Again, Praise God!