When I say punitive I’m referring to punishment to penalize. Discipline is different in that it involves punishment to correct. Discipline doesn’t have to mean punishment to correct but it can. Discipline can be severe without referring to any penalty.
Obviously Jesus is praying about an unpleasant “cup” in the Garden of Gethsemane, but that isn’t always what the “cup” refers to. In addition, though Jesus’ cup contained a horrendous experience, it doesn’t necessarily have to be wrath or severity per se. The concept of the “cup” seems to refer to one’s lot – the thing in store for a person. Drinking of the cup appears to mean experiencing that experience (whatever it may be, pleasant or unpleasant). Here are some examples in which the cup is a desirable thing:
I found these passages just by searching “cup” in e-sword. I’d say there are probably about 1/3 of the references to “cup” (other than those talking about a neutral, physical cup) that refer to blessing of some sort. The rest are either to God’s wrath or to some unpleasant thing that is not necessarily God’s wrath. I tend to think that Jesus’ cup refers to the latter. He told James and John that they would indeed drink from His cup, yet we do not suffer the wrath of God since Jesus has rescued us from wrath. Therefore I would say that the cup of Jesus was NOT wrath; otherwise James and John wouldn’t be next in line to drink from it.
Cindy,
The translation I used is better because it fits with the rest of scripture.
for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place. - Acts 4:27 - 28
Look up the cup of God’s wrath. God’s cup of wrath is what causes suffering and destruction. No other cup in the Bible does this. This is the cup Jesus was referring to for He was about to suffer and die.
Since it was disciplinary James and John could drink from it. We all do.
The cup of wrath, as you call it, is also called the cup of blessing.
This cup of blessing *is the cup *which Jesus partook of. Here we have a scripture using the exact opposite meaning to what you are trying to convey. I think you need to reconsider your strict view of Diciplinary Wrath. Nowhere in scripture is this term used. It is an unfortunate term with reflects a very negative image IMO.
Steve
Steve,
The cup of God’s wrath (found in scripture) brings about suffering and death. This is the cup Jesus wanted taken from Him for He was about to suffer and die. But He said not my will but Yours be done. As Isa. 53 above states discipline fell on Christ. This was the suffering He went through to learn obedience.
No – I actually don’t think so. I appreciate your interpretation, but honestly I think you’re mistaken about this. Scripture doesn’t tell me that the cup was God’s wrath – or else I’m not finding it. If you can show me the passages you’re referring to, then I’ll consider that I may be wrong. Paul says: “Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.” (Rom 5:9 KJV) The cup cannot be God’s wrath if James and John are to drink of it. Here are some others:
Why do you need the cup to be God’s wrath? Do you prefer the penal substitution theory of the atonement?
As for the Masoretic being better than the Septuagint because it agrees with your understanding of other passages – well, that’s kind of circular reasoning. You might have reason to trust the Masoretic, but that in particular doesn’t really work as a defense of the Masoretic over the Septuagint.
But, you are right to say that Jesus’ suffering on the cross was in God’s plan. He’s called “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” God knew what would happen, and the whole plan of redemption/reconciliation was laid out before the world was formed.
I understand what you mean by ‘cup of God’s wrath’ when you explain the statement with this prefix: “This isn’t the Father’s punishment. Rather is God’s disciplinary training.” As the term can be easily confused with punitive discipline I think the term is inapt to accurately describe the cup of death, or the cup of atonement, which Christ, although appearing as a man, suffered in humility in order to experientially learn obedience unto death on the cross.
Steve
Cindy,
The Cup Jesus pleaded with God to take from Him was a cup of suffering and death. No other cup in the Bible fits this description except God’s cup of wrath. Isaiah 53 tells us that discipline would fall on Christ. He learned obedience through what He suffered. As Hebrews tells us, “God chastises, disciplines, and scourges those whom He loves and calls sons”. This is all of us. God’s penal wrath was removed at the cross. We don’t suffer God’s punishment. But we do undergo discipline. We all drink from Christ’s cup.
Cole, I’m just trying to see where you’re coming from and why it seems so important to you that the cup is God’s wrath. I’m getting the impression that you’ve been reading about penal substitution and that you’re favoring that particular theory of the atonement just now. Is that the case?
I don’t remember whether atonement theories came up in our discussions before – it’s been a while since we’ve talked. Personally, penal sub is my least favorite atonement theory because it hasn’t got near the mention in scripture that some of the other theories have. “Theories” might not be the best word to use, though, as I think most of them have some support in scripture (even penal sub), so it’s not like “there can be only one.” They all have merit and all give us some facets of the whole. Maybe “pictures” would be better. People say that even penal sub has merit as one picture of the atonement and maybe it does, but I’m not sure where it’s supported in scripture so I’ll just assume they know what they’re talking about.
There’s no need for the cup Jesus is speaking of to be a cup of God’s wrath. Jesus DID learn obedience by the things that He suffered, but Jesus did NOT need to be corrected. If a father teaches his son how to do a task and the son listens and does exactly as he’s shown, then he doesn’t need to be corrected. Jesus said that He didn’t do anything He hadn’t seen the Father do and that He did just as the Father showed him to do. Now – the son does need to be taught, but if he does it correctly – as he’s taught – then he doesn’t need correction. (let alone severity or wrath) Jesus lived a perfect, spotless life. He is the only human who has lived free of sin, and He was not being punished by the Father for our sins. WE punished Him because of our sins and our sinfulness, but Father did not punish Him. Father gave Him the task of bearing away our sins and laid on Him the inequity of us all – and Jesus did carry away those sins and destroyed the writing of the commandment that was against us. It doesn’t follow that He needed to be corrected or to taste God’s wrath.
Cindy,
I’ve already commented on the fact that Christ was sinless and that He learned obedience through what He suffered. It was clearly disciplinary as Isaiah 53 tells us along with Hebrews. You haven’t said anything I haven’t already addressed.
Cindy,
The Bible says that He who knew no sin became sin. This is why Jesus learned obedience through what He suffered. He didn’t suffer for His sins. For He was innocent. It was our sins that He suffered for. This is why the wrath was disciplinary.