Did Jesus drink the Cup of God's wrath in the Garden?

Before Christ was arrested by the Romans, He prayed in the garden asking that the "cup" pass from Him:

AV Matthew 26:39 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].

AV Mark 14:36 And 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.

AV Luke 22:42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. 

John's gospel makes a separate mention of the cup shortly after the Roman authorities appear:

AV John 18:11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

Calvinists, as supporting evidence for Penal Substitutionary Atonement, claim the symbolic cup Jesus said He would drink from  is the Wrath of God (appealing to the book of Revelation 14:10's, and a few Old Testament references mentioning of a cup of wrath). However, when understanding the cup, we should look to Matthew's gospel itself. We see the mention of cup--ποτηριον occurs 7 times in the gospel narration:

AV Mt 10:42 And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold [water] only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.

AV Mt 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? They say unto him, We are able. 

AV Mt 20:23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but [it shall be given to them] for whom it is prepared of my Father. 

AV Mt 23:25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. 

AV Mt 23:26 [Thou] blind Pharisee, cleanse first that [which is] within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. 

AV Mt 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave [it] to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 

AV Mt 26:39 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]. 

AV Mt 26:42 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.

Since Jesus is speaking poetically, not about an actual cup in Matthew 26:37-42, we can rule out the mention of a literal cup like Matthew 10:42, 26:27. Since, Jesus is using a cup for a different purpose in Matthew 23:25-26, that is to say he is using it as an analogy of how the Pharisee are clean externally but inwardly dirty, we can remove this as matching the cup Jesus worried about drinking from.  This leaves us with only Matthew 20:22-23 left. The story is to tell the disciples the only way they will be exalted is to humble themselves, masters must become servants. When He talks about drinking of the cup, in another gospels he also adds they must be baptized with the baptism he will be baptized with.

They said to him, “We can.” Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink, you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized;--Mark 10:39

Luke's gospel mentioning this baptism says:

There is a baptism with which I must be baptized, and how great is my anguish until it is accomplished!--Luke 12:50 

This last mention of anguish is like the anguish described in Matthew 26 while praying in the garden before His executioners arrived, as we read:

He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee along with him, and he began to be sorrowful and troubled. Then he said to them, “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death--Matthew 26:37-38

Furthermore, it is interesting that it was the sons of Zebedee that asked said they would drink of the same cup as Christ, and in Matthew 26:37 it says three disciples were asked to wait as Jesus prayer: Peter and the sons of Zebedee. Perhaps, He wanted them to have a first hand glimpse of the cup? James would later die in Acts 12 as a martyr, John would be the only Apostle not to die a martyr's death though tradition says he would be boiled alive and live. Peter, the chief apostle, would be told by Christ in John 21 he will be crucified, as tradition says he was in Rome.

Returning to the issue of Reformed theology, how can the cup of Matthew 26:39, Mark 14:36, Luke 22:42 be the wrath of God if two of the Apostle drank from the same cup? The answer is simple. The cup is not the wrath of God. It is a cup that represents suffering and sorrow--they would suffer at the hands of the very people they wanted to help. 

However, what do Reformed apologists do to avoid this treasured piece of evidence from being discounted as evidence that Jesus drank the cup of wrath? Say it the same but different cup:

"Christ was not indicating that James and John would atone for the sins of others—the grammar of His original question makes it impossible for Him to agree that the disciples could offer atonement. Instead, Jesus was pointing to the fact that in a sense, they would share in the ordeal Christ was about to undergo in Jerusalem. In other words, they would not escape suffering for the name of Jesus."--Ligonier.org "The Cup that Jesus drinks"

While admitting they are the same cup, in order to avoid the logical sacrilege implied by mere human apostles drinking the same cup of wrath, they say it means something else--that they would also suffer for Christ.

Premise 1: Jesus would drink a cup.
Premise 2: Two apostles were told they would drink the same cup.
Premise 3: Apostles cannot suffer the wrath of God as in the sense Calvinists suppose Christ suffered.
Conclusion: The cup was not the cup of wrath, therefore Matthew 26:42 cannot be used as support for penal substitution.

Matt Slick's Jesus is a cheater

A few weeks ago I was debating Matt Slick and other antiCatholics (who were Calvinists) about the atonement. I accused the Calvinist Jesus with getting off easy by paying the penalty of multiple eternities (in Hell) of the elects' sin in less than 3 days, Matt Slick answer sounded like Jesus cheated or was dishonest saying, it is due to the communication idiomatio, meaning to him whatever you say of one nature can be said of the other, ie in this case, although he suffered for a finite period as a man, because He is also God, He can have been considered to have suffered forever since God is eternal. (something along these lines) To me this sounds like their Jesus cheated. as if he said "I knew this was only a few hours, but let's call this forever and go to heaven."

But I have to give Matt credit, so far he has been the ONLY Calvinist to explain who Jesus paid the eternal damnation of the elect in a finite period of time--Jesus had to cheat, it is certainly more clever than the standard Calvinist response that "it is a mystery, God has not given this informtion to us." I have also contacted catholicnick on this matter, seeing as how he enjoys discussing the Calvinist atonement.

Each Shall die for his own sin

Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin. -Deuteronomy 24:16

The idea that Christ died as if He commited our sin violates the Biblical teaching that each man be put to death for his OWN sins.  This verse, however, seems to only apply to adults, since young children in the Bible are put to death, or killed, because of their parents sins, as in the case of David's son, or the nations God commanded the Israelites to destroys.  Regardless, Christ could not have been put to death for the sins of others (at least justly!). Rather, Christ willingly laid down His own life for the sake of others, not that He should die as their substitute, but that by His righteous death, God would show mercy to mankind, thus allowing man forgiveness on the condition they repent of their sins.  After all, Christ did make several warning statements that certain sins would cause the soul to go to Hell forever, as we see in Matthew 5 with sexual sins, Matthew 6 with withholding forgiving your brother's sins and so on.

On another point, Deuteronomy 24:16 is a verse anti/counter-Missionary Jews use against Christians.  Their claim is legitimate, but only against baptistic and Calvinistic types of Christians that espouse this particular view of the atonement that says "Christ died in our place" or "He took the wrath of God in our place" and so on.  Rather, the Biblical Christ was a propitiation for the sins of the world, meaning His death provided MERCY for mankind. 

I have already written before that the idea of a penal substitution when logically followed out is a denial of Trinitarianism, or can be an affirmation of a sort of Arianism (since God cannot be forsaken by God), or some form of theology where Christ as a man and Christ as God are divorced (undoing the incarnation).

Calvinists try to prove a penaly substitution with verses like 2 Corinthians 5:21, or Isaiah 53 and so on.  When the fact is 2 Corinthians 5:21 by saying Christ "became sin for us" is an expression St Paul was using for a sin offering, and Isaiah 53 doesn't mean God treated Christ as if He had our sins, in fact Matthew 8:17 interprets this part of Isaiah as Jesus healing the sick and casting out demons:

When it was evening, they brought him many who were possessed by demons, and he drove out the spirits by a word and cured all the sick, to fulfill what had been said by Isaiah the prophet: “He took away our infirmities and bore our diseases.”--Matthew 8:16-17

One more reason I am not a Calvinist or an OSASer

The Scripture reads

There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will introduce destructive heresies and even deny the Master who ransomed them, bringing swift destruction on themselves.-2 Peter 2:1

Notice it clearly says the Lord "bought" or "ransomed" the false teachers who are going to Hell, thus not everyone Jesus died for will go to Heaven no matter what.

Here is the link to a Calvinist's response

It's really long winded and repetitive, scroll down to the last paragraph to get his answer to the text. Dr McMahon sums it up with the following: 

So to summarize the point here: false teachers are “saying” they are Christians, and “saying” they have been bought, but in fact are not bought at all. “Denying the sovereign Lord who bought them” is what they are saying about their lifestyle, though it is not true from the rest of the immediate context of the passage. The word “bought” means they are either saved (which we know false teachers are not saved so that cannot be the meaning of the passage) or they are “saying” they “they believe themselves to be saved” and ultimately are self-deceived. But it cannot mean that Christ bought them with His blood, and they reject that “offer” to eternal life.

Essentially, what he does is change the text from

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

to

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who THEY FALSELY CLAIMED bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

This seems to be the only theologically feasible answer to this text from his theological bias, in other words he knows it's not possible to lose salvation and he knows that Christ only died for the elect, therefore he knows the text cannot deny those two things since he knows his Reformed interpretation of Scripture is true.

Most Calvinists believe all those bought/ "paid for" by Christ are saved and will go to heaven no matter what.  This is negated by 2 Peter 2:1.

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.-(2 Peter 2:1 ESV)

We see the Holy Scriptures telling us some people were bought by Christ, yet still go to Hell (swift destruction).   So, obviously, the penal substitution / Calvinistic / Reformed (and sometimes "evangelical") version of the atonement is FALSE.

This article was adapted from my post to catholic.com forum made a while ago

Reponse to some Jewish arguments against Jesus

Antimissionary: If Jesus died on Friday and less than 36 hours later on Sunday he undied, Jesus made no real sacrifice.
Response: Dying is dying, suffering still occurs, the suffering is part of the death and is the sacrifice.  How long someone is dead is irrelevant, since every gets resurrected and since you will be without a body in the meantime, what is it to you that you dead?  Did the "10 Holy Martyrs" of Israel not actually atone for sin, since they will all be resurrected at the end of time?

The prophet tells us that this sin was unforgivable and was viewed with greater severity than every cardinal offense. With this statement the prophet alludes to the fact that the greatest scholars of Israel, the ten holy martyrs would be brutally murdered in atonement for this sin. Hashem said that the sale of Yoseif, unlike all other sins, could never be overlooked and that one day the greatest Tannaim (Mishnaic authors) would suffer inhuman torture and be taken from us in atonement for this sin. -vayeishev

Was God the Son separated from God the Father are Calvary?

Recently, a few people has told me and others on Paltalk that during the Cross Christ was "separated from the Father."  One person that said this was an antiCatholic who is a Calvinist, another was a young man that left the Church believing himself to be more Catholic than the pope (he stated Christ's separation was purely in His humanity, not Divinity), another was an anti/ex-Catholic who received education at a Protestant 'bible college.'.

People that promote this theory use many scriptures as proof texts.  They include the Scripture at Calvary where Christ says "why have you forsaken me," the passage in 1st Corinthians where St Paul declares Christ became sin for us, and other passages which state Christ "bore" our sins, and the verse in Isaiah 53 where it speaks of the suffering Servant as being "cut off"

As a note the verse about being forsaken is a quotation of Psalm 22 and Christ is expressing the words of sinners, perhaps the best explanation for this is found by St Augustine of Hippo:

"...the first verse of which the Lord Himself uttered on the Cross: "My God, My God, look upon Me; why have You forsaken Me?" For "transferring us in a figure" [1 Corinthians 4:6] to what He was saying, and to His own Body (for we are also "His Body," and He is our "Head"), He uttered from the Cross not His own cry, but ours. For God never "forsook" Him: nor did He Himself ever depart from the Father; but it was in behalf of us that He spoke this: "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?" For there follows, "Far from My health are the words of My offences:" and it shows in whose person He said this; for sin could not be found in Him.…"--Exposition on Psalm 44

I will deal with the other Scripture verses at a later time.

The main reason the view Christ was separated from the Father is not a viable view if for it's incompatiblity with Trinity theology and the hypostatic union.

For Christ to be separated from the Father would require either Arianism (even temporary) or some form of temporary polytheism.  For Christ being God to be separated from God the Father would mean there was some form of fracture in the Trinity.  The Trinity is a profession that God is one substance in the Persons that are united.  Many Protestants like to assert that Deuteronomy 6:4 (Hear of Israel....the Lord is One) word echad (one) refers to a compound unity.  Now if God is a compound unity, then how can God the Son be separated from God the Father and still be One God, that is a compound unity?  The answer is plain, it cannot be the case. God cannot be separated from Himself, it would be illogical in anyway.  One of the individuals told me it only seems illogical, like when God became a man.  However, God becoming a man is not illogical because God the Son did not lose His form as God by assuming a human nature, John 3:13 tells us He was in Heaven while being on Earth.  While the theory Christ was separted from the Father is absolutely illogical since it violates the profession of God being One, a 'compound unity.' 

Now for the belief that Jesus Christ was only separated from the Father in His human nature alone.  This view is less illogical and less blasphemous at the first, but it is still a great error to claim since it would split the Person of Christ into two and undue the incarnation.  If He is fully God and man united in one person, Jesus Christ, that is the hypostatic union, then the Atonement would require Him to be separated from Himself, requiring Him possibly to be present solely in His Human nature at the Cross. This person that pushed this theory (the sedevacantist) eventually seemed to admit he did not know much theology (which begs then "how are you a sedevacantist if you don't know much theology" since sedevacantists insist the Church has fallen into heresy, but perhaps he IS a sedevacantist BECAUSE he does not know much theology, but this is the subject of another article.)

In experience I have only met one person (a Protestant) that acknowledged the difficulty in believing Jesus was separated from God the Father at the Cross who accepted it. He said told me in rougly these words "Yes the Trinity was broken up at the Cross!"

To be Continued....

Does Tetelestai mean Paid in Full? No!

See update that recent scholarship has shown the evidence for tetelestai=paid in full in old documents was misread and assumed to be tetelestai when in fact it is another word.

In Protestantism, particularly Calvinistic  circles that push the doctrine of “once saved always saved” or the “P” in the Calvinist  TULIP, there is a particular teaching that is passed around that says that when  Christ died and said “It is finished” (John 19:30) what He was really saying  that now every ones sins were “paid in full.”  By this they mean that the punishment of sinners were paid for by Christ  and since this punishment was paid already by Christ it is impossible for those  redeemed by Christ’s shed blood to lose salvation and enter into Hell, in other  words it guarantees a person’s salvation—no matter what they do.

They will point to the word TETLESTAI in Greek and say it really means “paid in full” and they commonly will appeal to something  they heard that says coins were found that carried the meaning “paid in full”. Others, they may substitute this with stamps, seals, or some other kind of legal document.  I have found many reference of such items in Calvinistic writings, but I have never seen one point to a  source that legitimately verifies such a claim.  I have found one that claimed tetelestai was used by lenders to show a person had finished paying off the loan. Others will point to Strong’s  Concordance, in which near the bottom of all the definitions includes “to pay” under tetelestai.

HOWEVER, it is dependent on these people to provide  evidence for their interpretation of the meaning of the word found on these  items, assuming this did occur as they said it did.  And, even if they can verify these claims, they must then demonstrate that John 19:30 uses Tetelestai in this sense.   Also, yes, Strong’s Concordance did list pay as one of the  definitions of tetelestai, however, was Strong fluent in Greek?, what was the depth of  his knowledge?  Most are not aware Strong himself was not even fluent in the languages he made lexicons for.  Regardless, the word is used to refer to paying, but in regards to taxes. (On the occurrence see below)

The true meaning of the word tetelestai is more  likely to just simply mean “accomplished” or “it has been fulfilled.”  This is because the word tetelestai is used only one other time in the New Testament, in fact in the Gospel of St  John, Chapter 19, verse 28—only two verses before the time the Lord Jesus  cried these words on the Cross.  Tetelestai is in the 3rd person perfect passive indicative  singular. This verse hints at the context of Tetelestai, also the root of it is used  also in the verse, τέλος :

Μετὰ τοῦτο εἰδὼς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι ἤδη πάντα τετέλεσται, ἵνα τελειωθῇ ἡ γραφή, λέγει, Διψῶ.

After  this Jesus, knowing that all was now finished [ τετέλεσται  ], said to fulfil [τελειωθῇ] the scripture, "I thirst."—John 19:28

Now lets compare this this verse in question (30)

ὅτε οὖν ἔλαβεν τὸ ὄξος [ὁ] Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν, Τετέλεσται: καὶ κλίνας τὴν κεφαλὴν παρέδωκεν τὸ πνεῦμα 

When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished [ Τετέλεσται ] : and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.--John 19:30 (KJV)

Since the verse 28 uses tetelestai, spelled in the same exact way as verse 30, is it unreasonable to say they are related? Now, considering the Scriptures here use tetelestai here to refer to the events that passed at the cross, it would seem odd to read the text here as;

After  this Jesus, knowing that all was now PAID IN FULL [ Τετέλεσται ], said to fulfill the  scripture, "I thirst”

Other than John 19:28,30,  the word in conjugated differently in other verses e.g. Luke 2:39, Acts 13:29, Matthew  7:28, 11:1, 13:53, 19:1, 26:1, Revelation 10:7, 15:1, Matthew 17:24, 2  Corinthians 12:9, Romans 13:6, James 2:8 etc…   Only two of the instances in the New Testament from which I have found telos  simply means “to fulfill” a prophecy, or to “finish” something, or to  accomplish an act, or to end something.  There are two instances where it is used to apply to taxes:

When they came to  Capernaum, those who collected the two-drachma tax came to Peter and said, "Does your teacher not pay the two-drachma tax?"—Matthew 17:24

For because of this you  also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.—Romans 13:6

Other versions translate this as “paid tribute”.

These, however, are not  literal translations, the sense telei is used in these verses is translated by  my interlinear as “is-settling-tribute.”  This does not in any way carry the meaning “paid in full” in the sense  Calvinists will push, especially in John 19 where it would not make sense in verse  28:

After  this Jesus, knowing that all was now PAID TRIBUTE, said to fulfill the  scripture, "I thirst."—John 19:28

 It would seem odd to say  “all” if it referred simply to the event of being on the Cross, saying IT IS  FINISHED refers to the EVENTS of the Cross especially in regards to the  fulfillment of Prophecy Is far more reasonable.

One person on paltalk told me:

Berhane, John  19:30 Jesus said "Tetelasthei" IT IS FINISHED; He did not say that we must purge the rest of our sins in purgatory; how deceiving and inaccurate.

His anti purgatory interpretation is based on a  false Calvinistic atonement where Christ paid the “penalty” or “punishment”  for sins, in such a way as to take our ETERNAL punishment on Himself somehow.  The problem with this is that the eternal penalty for sin is eternal damnation, and Christ certainly did not burn  in Hell forever, in fact He never went to the Hell of the Damned.   The Atonement was to appease the wrath of God, so that our sins could be forgiven and so the world could  reconciled to God. His blood was necessary payment to APPEASE the wrath of God, upon this payment, the Mercy of God was made available to man.  Just  because Christ died does not automatically remit our sins, belief and repentance are necessary to  benefit from the propitiation of Christ.

Essentially, purgatory only does damage to the cross if you presuppose a false concept of the Atonement, that is a Calvinist atonement, where  Christ would have mysteriously paid several eternities in Hell for the elect only.

Addendum: Here are some early Greek commentaries on John 19:30

UPDATE: The documents used to demonstrated tetelestai means "paid in full" have been misread by old scholarship.