Synoptics Section 330 Gethsemane

Okay, here we go. Let's see. One, two, three. Defiction burial. Okay, now how do we count that? That makes seven, yeah. I think it's more like 6 .25 or something like that, but you can't vote, you know.

We have been working toward this for a very long time. If you actually look at the number of pages left, and remember, some of this stuff's repeated. We're at 297 and it's only 338, so you're talking 40 pages.

Not a lot there, but some of the toughest, you know, synoptic issues. Now it's been so long, maybe I would need to remind everyone that approximate a deck. We have been, well, so long that remember the, it's like almost completely white now.

I'm not sure whose that is, but they've left it in their car a lot and it's just, it's almost completely white. It's pretty cool. Anyway, during that entire time, I have been looking forward to, but also dreading, this section because there is no question that once we start here, the issues and questions that will arise as we compare the Gospels will be amongst the toughest questions that Christian scholarship and ministers and so on and so forth have faced through the centuries.

The Gospels and the Passion as the Culmination of the Message

And Jewish audience, Mark to a Gentile audience, Luke as well to a Gentile audience, but on a different level, was all meant to come to this as the heart of the message, what Christ does in his, in Calvary, in the crucifixion, burial, and resurrection.

And so once we get here, it seems that each of the authors is now looking to emphasize that which fulfills what they've laid the foundation for up to this point. We begin with the story of Gethsemane, which is section 330.

It's, if you just sort of scan over the material, that Matthew and Mark give the fullest discussion. And you may recall that the sweating of blood and the angels' ministrations, and so on and so forth, and I spent a whole class on that, and everybody looked at me like, what in the world are you talking about?

And so that's why we took a number of weeks to lay the foundation to know that. But that's part of the reason that Luke isn't quite as full, but Matthew and Mark look pretty much the same. So we'll go with Mark as we read through this section, and then notice some of the other items.

Mark, Matthew, and Luke on Gethsemane

Reading the small print of 1426, and when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives. Singing a hymn would have been, obviously, from the Psalter, and this was a part of the Passover celebration.

I think we should probably remember that we, as the people of God, when we sing, are doing what God's people have done for a very, very long time. And sometimes we, I think, take it for granted, the freedom that we have to sing.

Certainly a couple of the amens, when we finish it, sound like the hymn is dying, rather than being said it is true. It's just sort of, oh, man. Some of you don't remember Brother Metwyer. How many of you remember Brother Metwyer?

Look at that, look at that. But y 'all remember what Brother Metwyer told us about the amen? I think that's where I got it from. I think he's the one who said sometimes it sounds like, instead of the hymn is ending by saying it is true, it just sounds like it's slowly dying.

It's just, you know. And Brother Metwyer told us that we need to sing that amen with some passion. I think some of the reasons, one of the reasons we generally don't is we're not exactly sure which notes we're supposed to be doing for that amen anyways.

But anyway, they sung a hymn and went out to the Mount of Olives and they went to a place which was called Gethsemane. And he said to his disciples, sit here while I pray. And he took with him Peter and James and John and began to be greatly distressed and troubled.

And he said to them, my soul is very sorrowful even to death. Remain here and watch. And going a little farther, he fell on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him.

And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible. Remove this cup from me, yet not what I will, but what Thou wilt. And he came and found them sleeping. And he said to Peter, Simon, are you asleep? Could you not watch one hour?

Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. And again he went away and prayed, saying the same words. And again he came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy.

They did not know what to answer him. And he came the third time and said to them, are you still sleeping? And taking your rest, it is enough. The hour has come. The Son of Man has been betrayed into the hands of sinners.

Rise, let us be going. See, my betrayer is at hand. Now, there are some expansions in Matthew, a great deal. Instead of James and John being specifically two sons of Zebedee. Second time he went away and prayed, Father, if this cannot pass until I drink it, thy will be done.

And so he, instead of just simply saying, he said the same words, there is specific specificity provided. Third time, in both, the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Rise, let us be going.

See, my betrayer is at hand. And so you have pretty much everything there. Luke very much telescopes this and summarizes this. Does not really focus upon the, especially the repetition. He just simply summarizes and gives a summary at that point.

John's Parallel Account and Claims of a Low Christology

Now, we should, I think, know one thing. And that is, if we bring John in, because John does talk about going to a garden and entering into the garden, and the trouble of his soul says, the disciples then in prayer, now is my soul troubled.

What shall I say, Father, save from this hour? Know of this purpose, I have come to this hour. And then you have Judas coming immediately at that point in time. John does not focus upon what Jesus does, and splitting up with the disciples, and so on and so forth.

A couple things that are crossing my mind immediately here. There is a theory out there, and I guess it's part of my job to let you know some of the theories that are out there. Not that a few moments on Google would not bring these things to your attention.

Well, of course, on the internet, there's a theory about everything. Most of which is utterly ridiculous. But anyway, there is a theory out there, propounded by some, that the division of the disciples was a defensive movement.

That the first group of disciples are the initial line of defense, and then the three are sort of the inner guard, and that Jesus is afraid of the Jews, and so on and so forth. I don't know how you can read this and come up with that.

There are some people who try to present the idea that Jesus was a renegade zealot, that, well, of course, we have certain news personalities that likewise have recently propounded the theory that Jesus was crucified because he interrupted the tax flow of the Roman Empire.

And those particular individuals make lots of money off of these silly things. But anyway, some of my Muslim friends likewise promote this idea that Jesus was engaged in military activity here. The very, very famous Ahmed Didat presented the idea that Jesus certainly did not give himself up freely.

It was not his desire. It was engaging. Considered military action, and so it might make you go, didn't know much about military action. But anyway, there are those who believe this, that if Jesus was trying to set his soldiers up here, that he had one lousy group of soldiers.

Jesus hasn't told them what's coming, at least as far as they really understood what actually starts happening. And even when the betrayer comes, Jesus isn't informed of that by some kind of clash with the other disciples.

He has to inform his alleged inner guard what's going on. And then, of course, when Jesus does speak to the disciples, what does he say? Do not, you know, he talks about temptation, not failure at your military duties or some silly thing like that.

So there's lots of folks who come to these texts. They have basically a desire to come up with something new, so as to get published. I saw a clip yesterday. Need to note a couple of things. To attempt to create a wide spectrum of divergence across that one page, page 297 that's sitting in front of you or whatever.

Less official, but yet acceptable. That's Ricketonious. And that is to assert that what you've got in Mark is over here. What you've got in John's over here. Matthew and Luke's in between. In Mark, you've got an out-of-control Jesus.

I mean, he's just, he's greatly distressed and troubled. And he doesn't know what to do. In all things possibly, remove this cup from me. The reality is that Matthew, Mark, and Luke really isn't a substantive difference.

You go back in Mark, and Jesus is talking about when the woman annoys him. She's done this for my burial. Very clear, he knows what's coming. He's gone to Jerusalem for a specific purpose. I mean, it requires such an incredible to get Mark way out over there.

And what they're trying to do is they're trying to establish a progression from a low Christology to a little higher Christology to a little higher Christology to real high Christology in John. And that's why there has to be all these decades in between for all this evolution to take place and la, la, la, la, la.

Some of you, if you've seen, I'm not sure, I don't remember if we showed years ago. It's been so long ago now. But when I did the debate with John Dominic Crossan on the reliability of the Gospels, you know, that's the framework.

That's the essence of where he's coming from. And fundamental to his perspective is this radical difference between Mark and John. And so I asked a number of questions from Mark. And you could just tell that what he found odd was that I wasn't allowing him to just chop Mark up into pieces.

Mark said this, and he said this, and he said this. Should we take them all together? And from their perspective, it's like, no, if we take them all together, how are we going to get published? You know, I mean, that's just the world that he lives in and has always lived in.

And so it just seems almost simplistic or out of place for someone to go, yeah, but what you're trying to say, Mark's doing, he's not really doing. But the big thing you'll hear is Mark, Jesus doesn't want to die.

John, the Jesus of John is just striding through these things. He knows exactly what he's going to do. And it's just like a big game because it just doesn't matter. You know, John doesn't have anything about Jesus praying that the cut be removed and so on and so forth.

Actually, now is my soul troubled, what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour. No, for this purpose I have come to this hour. So you have specifically the assertion that Jesus, his soul is troubled.

And a recognition of God's purpose in this hour, what you have in Matthew, Mark, and Luke is likewise, nevertheless not my will but thine be done. He knows what's coming. And the real question becomes, why is there this great disturbance in the soul of the Lord Jesus?

The Meaning of Jesus' Agony and the Cross

Well, my Muslim friends, the less reflective and respectful of them, I've actually had some, and this is not reflective of the vast majority. In fact, I would be surprised if ISIS fighters would say this, to be honest with you.

But I've had at least one man, a man by the name of Osama Abdullah, say that Jesus was a coward. And that there have been many men who have faced their death with significantly more bravery than the Jesus of the Bible did.

Like I said, I don't even think most ISIS fighters would say that. All conservative Sunni Muslims are taught to say the blessings of peace be upon Jesus when they say his name and are a little more respectful than that, to be perfectly honest with you.

Even if they remain Muslim in denying the crucifixion, so on and so forth. But there has been, on the part of many, this assertion that, well, we can't trust the Gospels. We certainly can't trust John, which is odd, because John's one of the only places they can go to try to find Muhammad in the New Testament in John 14 and 16, which are right before this.

So you can't trust John 18. I'm not sure you can trust John 14 or 16. But anyway, the idea is, well, here's an indication of the corruption. This is because you have such a divergence between Mark and Jesus.

And of course, the answer that we can give that is, I believe, very clearly the appropriate answer is, from their perspective, Jesus is merely. And while he may have supernatural knowledge of the future, it's only being passively received.

It's just as any other prophet would have knowledge of future events in that sense. And certainly there is no concept within their thinking, because they're not allowing the text to speak for itself, that Jesus has said, I'm coming to do this.

This is why I'm even here. Yet not I will, but thou wilt. Know for this purpose I have come to this hour. All the statements in the Synoptic Gospels prior to this about the purpose of the cross, all that stuff, you can't expect what we do expect.

We do expect Muslims to expend the same kind of effort to allow the text to speak for itself. Here's the problem. They don't even do that with the Quran. They don't even do that with the Quran. The Quran is not viewed as we view the Bible as something that needs to be harmoniously and consistently interpreted.

It's just, it's not a clear enough book to allow that, to be perfectly honest with you. And so, for the vast majority of Muslims, the Quran is more of a magical text, than it is a text to be exegeted.

And so, we really are expecting something out of the ordinary to expect them to read our text in a fair way, because doing exegesis is not something that they've ever even had modeled for them by their own imams.

And so, that's something I constantly have to keep reminding myself of. Myself. Myself. Yes. I need to remind you. I keep having to remind myself. The things that I've learned over the years, you know, when I go to South Africa and I'm talking to a Muslim, it can be very frustrating because misrepresentation is what I believe.

Defeated misrepresentation is what I believe. And then I've got to think back and go, the vast majority of the people they've ever talked to who self-identify as a Christian, were not even functionally Trinitarian.

They were barely monotheists. They were primarily word faithers with a horrifically shallow theology and certainly no capacity or even willingness to express to others what the doctrine of the Trinity is even if they themselves understand or believe it.

So, you've got to live with the reality that this person is confused by what you're saying. They haven't talked to someone like you before. And so you have to be patient and you have to fight through these things.

And I have to keep reminding myself of those things. It's an important thing to do. Anyways, what is the answer? The answer is very clear. They are assuming that Jesus is concerned about his death, his physical death, the suffering, the beating, the crucifixion.

But we know, in reality, what is causing this distress on the part of the Lord Jesus if we allow the Gospels to stand as a whole and read them, if we allow Luke to tell Luke's story or Mark to tell Mark's story or Matthew to tell Matthew's story and then especially if we allow all four of them to speak there can be no question about what actually prompts the concern on the part of the Lord, the disturbing of his soul.

And a number of times I have been asked a few weeks ago that contained the two clips I went to Dublin for just a few days and I did two debates there, one at University College Dublin and one at Trinity College both against Adnan Rashid and interestingly enough a Muslim raised the question why did Jesus say my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?

This is a real stumbling block to many Muslims for many reasons. They don't believe that a prophet would ever say that. They believe that a prophet should never question Allah. A prophet would never say Allah has abandoned me.

It's one of the reasons they don't like the Psalter very much when they do read it. It's because the Psalter is very honest in the expressions of the psalmists themselves and their feelings of abandonment and so on and so forth.

But more than that so on the one hand they think it's beneath Jesus to have ever said these things and secondly that shows Jesus isn't God because God can't abandon God. And that question was asked in both debates.

I love when that question comes up. I mean it's just like yes! I hope I've got enough time to really answer this. In one I had two minutes in the other I had three minutes. So ask yourself the question if you had we'll give you three minutes three minutes and you're on your way to the airport and your cab driver is a Muslim and there are a lot of Muslim cab drivers so you've got three minutes to communicate and he's just raised why would Jesus say my God my God why have you forsaken me?

And of course I have the advantage of having been asked this many many over the years here as well there's a fundamental misunderstanding now regardless I normally do either Psalm 22 or Isaiah before the Lord's Supper so you don't cross death and so when we look at this text what's really going on and to recognize I don't see that what truly troubles Jesus' soul is this point in time when the Son is going to voluntarily the wrath that he received was not eternal in some place don't need to go big for big this year we're doing okay that kind of a badly sufficient the question has to be the intention of God the intention of Father, Son and Spirit and what is the nature of union with Christ and what is the nature of that great exchange.

And if you have an unlimited efficiency on one side no matter what we only live a certain number of years so you do not have an infinite amount of sins we haven't committed an infinite on the other side so even if you did try to come up with some kind of physical thing there wouldn't be any comparison there either.

What we simply are told is that what Christ did is sufficient for the justice of God to be fulfilled for his wrath to be satisfied and for his law to be honored so that the righteousness that is ours is a true righteousness that honors the glory of God.

That's the important aspect. It's not like there's some tribunal sitting outside of creation observing all this going. What do you think? I don't know. I guess it's enough some reason some people have that idea.

There's some kind of judge over God that can sort of go. I don't know. A couple more minutes might have helped or something along those lines that doesn't make any sense. That's not what is being referred to.

The Cry of Dereliction, Psalm 22, and the Sufficiency of the Atonement

Alright so we will pick up the fascinating story of John chapter 18 when next we have opportunity. I know that next week I believe Pastor Fry has spoken with Brother Callahan. Lord willing we'll be here if my plane lands on time but I am debating Mustafa Umar in Anaheim next Saturday afternoon.

And the only way they can get me out after the debate was first thing Sunday morning supposed to be over here. We hope assuming I've had planes pull up the gate and they're ready to go. And someone comes in spewing hydraulics all over the place.

Not sure I want to get on that plane and thankfully they cancelled the flight. But it happens you never know. So we'll hopefully be here. But travel is travel. Alright let's close the time. Our Gracious Heavenly Father once again we do thank you for this time you have given to us to consider your truth.

And especially today as we consider our Lord and Savior and His atoning work. We thank you for the opportunity of being reminded once again of the great price by which we have been redeemed. May we truly live with thanksgiving in our hearts as we consider what you've done for us.

We pray in Christ's name. Amen.