Comments on: Let This Cup Pass from Me http://www.jaywingard.com/2008/03/14/let-this-cup-pass-from-me/ Proclaiming the Glory of God in Jesus Christ Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:30:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Robert Lawrence http://www.jaywingard.com/2008/03/14/let-this-cup-pass-from-me/comment-page-1/#comment-1544 Robert Lawrence Fri, 03 Apr 2009 15:13:21 +0000 http://www.jaywingard.com/2008/03/14/let-this-cup-pass-from-me/#comment-1544 sorry fo9r typos. Gotta get back to work. Will visit again soon. sorry fo9r typos. Gotta get back to work. Will visit again soon.

]]> By: Robert Lawrence http://www.jaywingard.com/2008/03/14/let-this-cup-pass-from-me/comment-page-1/#comment-1543 Robert Lawrence Fri, 03 Apr 2009 15:12:40 +0000 http://www.jaywingard.com/2008/03/14/let-this-cup-pass-from-me/#comment-1543 For that topic, the theological problems are the original context is the first 5 verses that according to Hermeneutics refer to David and are not Prophetic until the 6th verse. Secondly, the sin was taken symbolically since we still have our sin literally but not positionally. It was his Wrath that was poured out literally and Isaiah says it pleased the Father to do this for our sake. It isnt necessary to trun his back on the son as he purs out His wrath and Jesus says that you always hear me and are with me. Again, it is traditionally taught the other take and the Jehovah Witnesses also use that argument to show that the Son was not God. Hope this helps some. For that topic, the theological problems are the original context is the first 5 verses that according to Hermeneutics refer to David and are not Prophetic until the 6th verse.
Secondly, the sin was taken symbolically since we still have our sin literally but not positionally. It was his Wrath that was poured out literally and Isaiah says it pleased the Father to do this for our sake. It isnt necessary to trun his back on the son as he purs out His wrath and Jesus says that you always hear me and are with me. Again, it is traditionally taught the other take and the Jehovah Witnesses also use that argument to show that the Son was not God. Hope this helps some.

]]> By: Robert Lawrence http://www.jaywingard.com/2008/03/14/let-this-cup-pass-from-me/comment-page-1/#comment-1542 Robert Lawrence Fri, 03 Apr 2009 15:08:05 +0000 http://www.jaywingard.com/2008/03/14/let-this-cup-pass-from-me/#comment-1542 Blessing to you as you teach His flock. Intersteingly also that my work blocks most religious sites but today I can get to yours...Blessings pastor. Hocking is the teacher I first heard it from by the way but most colleges teach the same take. See you here or hereafter. Blessing to you as you teach His flock. Intersteingly also that my work blocks most religious sites but today I can get to yours…Blessings pastor. Hocking is the teacher I first heard it from by the way but most colleges teach the same take.
See you here or hereafter.

]]> By: Jay Wingard http://www.jaywingard.com/2008/03/14/let-this-cup-pass-from-me/comment-page-1/#comment-1541 Jay Wingard Fri, 03 Apr 2009 15:03:16 +0000 http://www.jaywingard.com/2008/03/14/let-this-cup-pass-from-me/#comment-1541 Thanks Robert. Those are some excellent insights. I especially agree with you on the interpretation of Jesus' remez to Psalm 22. Muslims use this incorrect interpretation by many Evangelicals to try and prove that Jesus and God are not one if there was true abandonment as the eternal Trinity would no longer be eternal. It's interesting you wrote today because I am sitting in my office preparing a lesson for Sunday on just this topic of Jesus' cry of "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" Thanks so much for your comment and your great insight. I appreciate your taking the time to visit my blog and share your knowledge! Soli Deo Gloria! Thanks Robert. Those are some excellent insights. I especially agree with you on the interpretation of Jesus’ remez to Psalm 22. Muslims use this incorrect interpretation by many Evangelicals to try and prove that Jesus and God are not one if there was true abandonment as the eternal Trinity would no longer be eternal. It’s interesting you wrote today because I am sitting in my office preparing a lesson for Sunday on just this topic of Jesus’ cry of “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”

Thanks so much for your comment and your great insight. I appreciate your taking the time to visit my blog and share your knowledge!

Soli Deo Gloria!

]]> By: Robert Lawrence http://www.jaywingard.com/2008/03/14/let-this-cup-pass-from-me/comment-page-1/#comment-1540 Robert Lawrence Fri, 03 Apr 2009 14:58:33 +0000 http://www.jaywingard.com/2008/03/14/let-this-cup-pass-from-me/#comment-1540 I have had many discussions about this topic and took my Cristology class under a Rabbi turned Christian who is very well known. The Jewish perspective and the greek language give some valuable insight into another possible perspective to the cup. Lets start with two things we do know. The Bible does not clearly state which cup he is referring to. All possibilites are implied, but the greek does state that it is "this" present tense, cup. Not a future tense. Which cause my professor to ask the question to us in class, which cup was he enduring in the garden? Well, he was dripping great drops like blood, which from a doctors description is that the capillaries had burst and was oozing blood from his pores usualy caused from great physical stress. There is no cure to this condition and eventually leads to death form loss of blood. Secondly, at the end the angels come and ministrer to him. Healing him? Possibly. Thirdly, lets look at it from this perspective and see if it still fits theologically. If he was asking for deliverance from dying in the garden then the statement that Christ makes earlier, that "Anything I ask my Father he gives me" and " I only say what my Father tells me to say" were answered and true. The Father answered and delivered him from the cup in the garden. And to only say what the Father says, and have anything you ask the Father because you are perfectly in His will, well these two things are required for perfect obedience which Christ had to have for His sacrifice to be accepted at the cross. The lamb without blemish. But if he is being attacked in the garden by the one who wanted to keep him from the cross (This part is speculation on anyones part, sincce it does not tell us anything besides the symptoms of the attack-the blood drops) and Jesus asks the disciples to pray for him, which they dont do, btu asks the Father to deliver him from this cup right there in the garden, but stipulates it with the statement that "nevertheless, not my will but yours be done" he would be saying that "if you allow me to die here then so be it, not my will but yours be done. But I desire to go to the cross and please save me from this cup here so I can do that." not only does this pose far less Theological problems as an explanation then explaining that Christ was asking for deliverance from the cross and the wrath that he would endure. This has many Theological problems like, is His will ever different from the Father's? Can he ask something and the Father not give it to him? Could he cry out for something that was ultimately not the Father's will and still be perfect? Did he give place to his flesh for that moment? All these questions are usually answered by saying that He cried out "in his humanity". But remember the Theological problems that answer forms, and also remember that it does not state anywhere else in scripture that this is the answer. It makes more sense to me that he was simply asking for the Father to save him there in the Gardent but IF the Father had other plans that Christ did not know of***, then Christ was Ok with that also. ***(remember Christ said that he only knows what the Father told him because he emptied himself to become like us, still God, for only God can be the Savior, (Isaiah 43:11, 45:21,etc.) but giving up the Godly rights (Philippians 2:7) except what the Father gives him through the Spirit. (sorry for the necessary rabbit trail)*** And as an answer to the prayer, the angels come and heal him. I know it is not as profound as the traditional teaching but I am always wary of adding to the scriptures a meaning that they dont clearly say and that poses many contextual and Theological problems that are answered with things like "it is the mystery of his Humanity and Diety"or "The mystery of the Trinity", etc. By the way, this take on the cup is taught in many solid biblical and academic Bible Colleges and Seminaries but is usually not taught by Pastors who have just been taught that traditional answer to the question, "which cup is He referring to". I love our Pastors in the Church worldwide of many denominations but the Scholars have taught Matthew as a course in school, verse by verse for 20-30 yrs often times while the Pastors cover the verse once or twice a year tops. So maybe we should listen to those who have studied and taught the verse thousands of times vs those who covered it maybe 30 times in a 30 yr ministry. I was challenged by my professor's commentary to make sure that I am searching the scriptures to see if what I am being told is true. That is the righteousness of the Bereans and that we all woudl do that before we teach the great truths of scripture. Another great debate is "My God, My God" was he just quoting the first line fo Pslams 22 as Rabbis commonly did and Jesus did all through his ministry to cause those listening to think about the whole chapter? That is the Jewish take on it. Could the Father ever Forsake the Son even for amoment and God still be UNITED as he never changes. Again, not as profound as the traditional explanation but very Biblical and Theologically sound. Or did God literally forsake the son? And does it STATE that clearly in the scriptures or are we explaining it in a way that the jews and disciples would have never taken it... That is a topic for another time. I have had many discussions about this topic and took my Cristology class under a Rabbi turned Christian who is very well known. The Jewish perspective and the greek language give some valuable insight into another possible perspective to the cup.
Lets start with two things we do know. The Bible does not clearly state which cup he is referring to. All possibilites are implied, but the greek does state that it is “this” present tense, cup. Not a future tense. Which cause my professor to ask the question to us in class, which cup was he enduring in the garden? Well, he was dripping great drops like blood, which from a doctors description is that the capillaries had burst and was oozing blood from his pores usualy caused from great physical stress. There is no cure to this condition and eventually leads to death form loss of blood. Secondly, at the end the angels come and ministrer to him. Healing him? Possibly. Thirdly, lets look at it from this perspective and see if it still fits theologically. If he was asking for deliverance from dying in the garden then the statement that Christ makes earlier, that “Anything I ask my Father he gives me” and ” I only say what my Father tells me to say” were answered and true. The Father answered and delivered him from the cup in the garden. And to only say what the Father says, and have anything you ask the Father because you are perfectly in His will, well these two things are required for perfect obedience which Christ had to have for His sacrifice to be accepted at the cross. The lamb without blemish.
But if he is being attacked in the garden by the one who wanted to keep him from the cross (This part is speculation on anyones part, sincce it does not tell us anything besides the symptoms of the attack-the blood drops) and Jesus asks the disciples to pray for him, which they dont do, btu asks the Father to deliver him from this cup right there in the garden, but stipulates it with the statement that “nevertheless, not my will but yours be done” he would be saying that “if you allow me to die here then so be it, not my will but yours be done. But I desire to go to the cross and please save me from this cup here so I can do that.” not only does this pose far less Theological problems as an explanation then explaining that Christ was asking for deliverance from the cross and the wrath that he would endure. This has many Theological problems like, is His will ever different from the Father’s? Can he ask something and the Father not give it to him? Could he cry out for something that was ultimately not the Father’s will and still be perfect? Did he give place to his flesh for that moment? All these questions are usually answered by saying that He cried out “in his humanity”. But remember the Theological problems that answer forms, and also remember that it does not state anywhere else in scripture that this is the answer.
It makes more sense to me that he was simply asking for the Father to save him there in the Gardent but IF the Father had other plans that Christ did not know of***, then Christ was Ok with that also.
***(remember Christ said that he only knows what the Father told him because he emptied himself to become like us, still God, for only God can be the Savior, (Isaiah 43:11, 45:21,etc.) but giving up the Godly rights (Philippians 2:7) except what the Father gives him through the Spirit. (sorry for the necessary rabbit trail)***
And as an answer to the prayer, the angels come and heal him. I know it is not as profound as the traditional teaching but I am always wary of adding to the scriptures a meaning that they dont clearly say and that poses many contextual and Theological problems that are answered with things like “it is the mystery of his Humanity and Diety”or “The mystery of the Trinity”, etc.
By the way, this take on the cup is taught in many solid biblical and academic Bible Colleges and Seminaries but is usually not taught by Pastors who have just been taught that traditional answer to the question, “which cup is He referring to”.
I love our Pastors in the Church worldwide of many denominations but the Scholars have taught Matthew as a course in school, verse by verse for 20-30 yrs often times while the Pastors cover the verse once or twice a year tops. So maybe we should listen to those who have studied and taught the verse thousands of times vs those who covered it maybe 30 times in a 30 yr ministry.
I was challenged by my professor’s commentary to make sure that I am searching the scriptures to see if what I am being told is true. That is the righteousness of the Bereans and that we all woudl do that before we teach the great truths of scripture.
Another great debate is “My God, My God” was he just quoting the first line fo Pslams 22 as Rabbis commonly did and Jesus did all through his ministry to cause those listening to think about the whole chapter?
That is the Jewish take on it. Could the Father ever Forsake the Son even for amoment and God still be UNITED as he never changes. Again, not as profound as the traditional explanation but very Biblical and Theologically sound.
Or did God literally forsake the son? And does it STATE that clearly in the scriptures or are we explaining it in a way that the jews and disciples would have never taken it…
That is a topic for another time.

]]> By: Ike http://www.jaywingard.com/2008/03/14/let-this-cup-pass-from-me/comment-page-1/#comment-970 Ike Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:36:37 +0000 http://www.jaywingard.com/2008/03/14/let-this-cup-pass-from-me/#comment-970 And when the genuine believer looks upon His face for the first time..........it will not be the face of a stranger! And when the genuine believer looks upon His face for the first time……….it will not be the face of a stranger!

]]>