Tonight I taught a class on the Definition of Chalcedon. This represents the Christian understanding that Christ is 100 percent God and 100 percent man (“very God of very God of very man of very man”).
A discussion that arises every time I teach on this is how are we to explain Christ’ s apparent lapse in memory and mission when he prays in the garden to the Father, “If it is possible, let this cup pass from me . . .” (Matt. 26:39).
What did Christ mean when he said this? Did he really not know whether it was possible or not? He seemed so intent on his purpose to go to the cross before. Did he think that there just might be some loop-hole that would get him out of his suffering?
Not too long before, he rebuked Peter calling him “Satan” for even suggesting that he would not suffer (Matt. 16:23). Then immediately after this, Peter does it again when he cuts the ear of the guard off. Christ says, “Am I not to drink this cup that the Father has given me?” (John 18:11). So Christ’s seeming “prayer of absolution” is bookended by his stern rebuke of others who hope for this very absolution.
Here is the essence of my question. Was Christ sincere about this request or is there something more to it?
53 replies to "What Did Christ Mean When He Said . . ."
Yes, and Rom 8:29: to be conformed to His image.
But we’re talking about what Christ said to the Father in Gethsemane. Nothing he said there implied what you’re saying now; any martyr could make the same prayer and actually be saying: “Father, I know you have a purpose for my suffering, and I value your purpose above any goal I’ve conceived on my own; but I don’t want to suffer, and if you can accomplish that purpose without my suffering, please do so.” The martyr could say that even without knowing what the purpose was. (I would argue that we should all be saying that, and as we become more conformed to Christ’s image, we will.)
How can I read this as NOT begging the question? The only thing I can think of is that you’re contradicting the very next statement you make:
This is my point. He is the chief and prototypical martyr not because He was about to die (others have done so without being martyrs), but because the later martyrs were being conformed to His image. This doesn’t mean they developed two wills; it meant, in this case, that they were growing toward desiring and wholeheartedly submitting to the fulfillment of the Father’s will in the same way Christ desired and wholeheartedly submitted to it.
-Wm
I can see that the doctrine of two wills of Christ would imply that, but that is also taught by many other examples — in fact, by simply praying for that Christ makes it clear (without the doctrine) that it’s okay to will to avoid suffering. The doctrine of two wills fails here because it makes it look like it’s okay to will (not merely desire, but will) something that contradicts the revealed will of the Father. It’s not. Christ therefore did not will against what He knew the will of the Father was; He simply desired otherwise, but submitted His will to the Father’s, by deliberately emphasizing His desire for the Father above His (good) desire to preserve His life.
Christ did not will to preserve His life, and then renounce that will; rather, he desired to preserve His life, and renounced that desire in favor of a greater one. If he’d ever willed to preserve His life when His Father had revealed a will that He lay it down, every righteousness He performed while so willing would have been a filthy rag.
-Wm
This looks like a strong argument, and I’d like to see it carried out, but it got cut off by the blog. But here you go too far, and contradict your own Church. We know not by unity of action, but rather by revelation that there is only one God, and thus one essence of God. By the same authoritative revelation we know that the Persons participate in actions differently, as I discussed in an earlier post. I won’t carry on, both to prevent duplication and to allow your true argument to emerge.
-Wm