The Agony of Christ in the Garden

So if you have your Bibles, please turn them with me to mark chapter 14 and go to verse 26 and then we have some visitors tonight, so by way of introduction this has been a section by section study of Mark's gospel it hasn't really been a deep dive exposition but more of a section by section overview as we've been studying this book for now several months and we're drawing close to the end but we're still taking it one verse at a time as we look through it and tonight we're going to be looking particularly at verses 26 to 42 which will take us through two sections of this of this epistle,

I'm sorry of this gospel and will cause us to see two events that are happening following the institution of the

Lord's Supper. Last time we met was two weeks ago because last week we celebrated

Holy Week on Thursday night. We had our Maundy Thursday service but the week before that we went through the

Lord's Supper and we talked about the differing views that people have about the bread and the cup and we said that there was the the

Roman Catholic perspective which is that the body and blood of Jesus are in the bread and the cup having been transformed into his body and his blood that is called what?

Transubstantiation or a change of substance. Then we talked about other perspectives like the

Lutheran view which holds to a sacramental presence. They believe that Jesus is present in the bread and the cup, but they do not believe in the same view as the

Roman Catholic view. So there is a distinction to be made there though. It is a distinction that is very difficult to discern at times because they both believe in Christ's physical presence.

It really is an issue of what's happening in the bread and the cup. Roman Catholics believe that there is a representation of the sacrifice of Christ therefore creating a propitiation in that work that there is a propitiation happening and that that in itself is

I think is a heresy, but don't want to take us back into that. And then we looked at the view of the traditional reform view which is the spiritual presence that Christ is spiritually present in the bread and the cup.

And then we looked at the view that our church teaches which is the view sometimes referred to as the memorial view which is that the bread and the cup are pointing to the the body and blood of Christ, but are not themselves the body and blood of Christ, but rather they are to act as a memorial of those of those realities.

Looking back to what Christ did on the cross looking forward to his return as he said every time you do this you show forth the

Lord's death until he comes again. And the reason why I bring this up before we read is because one of the issues that happens when we talk about the bread and the cup is the issue of discerning what we would say is the divine nature of Christ and the human nature of Christ.

Because while we recognize that Jesus is the

God -man and we make that statement very affirmatively that he is the

God -man we also have to affirm in that that there are certain lines that we do not want to cross.

And the early church went to great lengths to try to outline for us and explain for us what we mean when we talk about Christ as being truly

God and truly man. The term in Latin is vera homo vera

Deus. Now homo in Greek means same, which is where we get the word homosexual, but homo in Latin means man or human.

And so in Latin vera means truth. It's where we the word veritas, where we get the word truth.

Vera homo means truly man. And at the same time vera

Deus, truly God. And we call this the hypostatic union.

The word hypostatic is Greek or comes from the Greek and it is the word hypostasis, which means the essence or being of something or nature of something.

So when we say hypostatic union, we are saying the union of natures.

Christ is not part God and part man. He is not 70 -30 or 60 -40.

But everything that is God, truly Christ is.

And everything that is man, body, soul, and spirit, truly Christ is.

And so if you read, such as the Council of Chalcedon in their attempt to try to define this, you will notice that there will be a reference to the union of the natures of the divine and human, that they are not mixed, they are not confused, and yet they are inseparable and undivided.

So unmixed and distinguishable, but not dividable or divisible.

Now the reason why I mention all of this is because that's important for the table because it's how we come to, you know, can

Christ's body be here and His spirit not? Can Christ's spirit be here and His body not? There's questions that go with that. But in tonight's lesson, we're going to see

Christ weep in His time in the garden.

And the question often arises, how can Jesus, as it were, plead with the

Father and and say, not Thy will, excuse me, not my will, but Thy will be done, if Christ Himself is truly

God? How can He have another will? And so this question comes up and it is an important theological discussion.

But before we get there, we're going to see there's also this issue of Peter being told he's going to deny

Jesus. So let's read the text. We're going to spend less time in the first part, but we will still read it and talk about it.

Verse 26 says, And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives, and Jesus said to them,

You will all fall away, for it is written, I will strike the serpent, the sheep will be scattered, but after I am raised up,

I will go before you to Galilee. Peter said to him, Even though they all fall away, I will not.

And Jesus said to him, Truly I say to you, this very night, before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times.

But he said emphatically, If I must die with you, I will not deny you.

And they all said the same. They went to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to his disciples,

Sit here while I pray. And he took with him Peter, James, and John, and began to be greatly distressed and troubled.

And he said to them, My soul is very soulful, even to death, remain here and watch. After going a little further, he went on to the ground and prayed that if it were possible, the hour might pass from him.

And he said, Abba Father, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me.

Yet not I will. Yet not what I will, but what you will. And he came and found them sleeping.

And he said to Peter, Simon, are you sleeping? 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.

Again, he came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy, and 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 is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Rise, let us be going.

See, my betrayer is at hand. Father in heaven, may you give me the words to say, the voice and strength to say it, that your people might be edified and,

Lord, drawn to your Son. In Christ's name, Amen. So, two scenes immediately following Mark's account of the

Lord's table. Now John's gospel actually carries on for several chapters.

So the upper room discourse, sometimes referred to as the upper room discourse, you remember when

Jesus said, Let not your heart to be troubled, I'll go there and prepare a place for you, all that stuff,

John 14, those paths, that's all in the upper room. So, Jesus has given the upper room discourse.

He has prayed what we call the high priestly prayer, John 17, that very long and lengthy prayer that Jesus prays for his disciples.

All of those things Mark simply leaves out. For what reason?

We don't know, other than the fact that Mark's gospel is known for its brevity and it's known for moving quickly from one scene to the next.

He is intending to take us to the cross with haste. He wants to get us to the message of Christ dying for sinners.

And so he does everything. What's the most common word in his book? Immediately.

Is that what you said? Yeah, immediately. If you read the English Standard Version, the word immediately comes up over and over and over.

Immediately this, immediately that, immediately this, and it just reminds us that Mark is a not hastily written, but hastily told story of the life of Christ.

It is the shortest of the four Gospels. It has, in fact, the least amount of information, yet at the same time it does tell us some things that other ones don't.

We're going to see that in just a moment. Eighty -five percent of Mark is contained in Matthew and Luke, so there's only like a very small handful of verses that are unique to Mark.

So just little things like that. We see Mark's gospel is an interesting and unique gospel among the four.

So the first verses we read tonight are about his denial. Or excuse me,

Jesus foretelling his denial. It says they sang a hymn, they went to the

Mount of Olives, and Jesus tells them that they're all going to fall away, and he quotes the

Old Testament. I will strike the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered, but after I'm raised up,

I'll go before you to Galilee. Peter said to him something that I think is pretty

Peter -like. Peter had a tendency to open his mouth and put his foot in.

I've said many times, of all the Apostles, I feel like I relate to Peter the most because I sometimes have a tendency to speak too quickly, and the

Bible says we should be what? Slow to speak. So I'm still learning that when none of us have arrived, we should all be able to recognize our own proclivities for error, and sometimes

I do speak too quickly, and so did Peter. And what is Peter's words here? He said, even though they all fall away,

I won't. Which I think is, obviously,

I can't see what those men's faces look like, but I can imagine he got a pretty stern look from the other 11.

Well, at that point, 10, Judas had already left. But to look at him and say, what are you talking about? You think you're better than us?

He said, if they all fall away, I won't. So Jesus, in that sense, is forced to tell

Peter what he knows. And this comes to an interesting moment in Mark's Gospel.

Jesus said to him, truly, I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows twice.

Now, the reason why I stop there is because if you look at this same passage in Matthew's Gospel and in Luke's Gospel, it does not say twice.

You don't have to turn there, but if you want to, if you want, I'd read it to you. It says in Matthew 26, 34,

Jesus said to him, truly, I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.

So the denial is consistent. Three times.

No problem. In Luke's Gospel, Luke 22, 34,

Jesus said, I tell you, Peter, the rooster will not crow this day until you deny three times that you know me.

So the denial, again, is consistent among Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

But Matthew, Mark, and Luke are inconsistent on the crowing of the rooster.

Mark says twice. Matthew and Luke simply says crows.

And there's no time or amount given. Now, this has been a object of accusation, and you know me,

I like to address these when they come up because I do enjoy apologetics, and the,

I do enjoy the importance of giving a defense for the hope that is within us, and sometimes that includes addressing places where the

Bible has supposed contradictions.

And in this case, it is, if you ever look at any of the online accusations where it'll say 20 ,000 contradictions or 20 contradictions or 50 ,000, whatever, there's always these websites that are devoted to trying to find contradictions in Scripture.

I don't believe there are any. I believe everything can be harmonized. I've said that before, but it's important to recognize when these come up so that we can at least address them.

What is the answer? I think the answer is in Mark's gospel, there is more information.

In Matthew and Luke, we have the same information, but not all of it.

And so I don't think Matthew and Mark, I'm sorry, I don't think Matthew and Luke are intending to limit the number of crows, but rather they are not being as specific as Mark's gospel in regard to this situation.

And the reason why I believe that is true is because each of the four

Gospels was written under the authority of an apostle. Matthew, of course, was an apostle.

John was an apostle. Luke was not an apostle. In fact, Luke was probably a

Gentile, so probably not even a Jew. But Luke was writing under the authority of who?

Paul. Luke would have been Paul's associate, and therefore Luke's would have had Paul's apostolic authority.

And we noticed something last week, or the last time we studied, about Luke's retelling of the

Lord's Table and Paul's retelling in 1st

Corinthians. What did we notice? It's the they both read almost identical when

Jesus gives the institution of the table. If you read 1st Corinthians 11, which is the first time the institution of the table is written down, 1st

Corinthians comes before any of the four Gospels. So when you read that, the language that is used there is almost exactly the language that's used in Luke, which gives again the idea that Luke is probably being written with Paul's influence.

But who is the apostle who is most likely the one who is over Mark?

Peter. We have early church fathers who wrote that Mark's gospel was written from Peter's memories.

That so it could it could easily be said that Peter that Mark is

Peter's gospel. Because Mark's gospel, though penned by Mark, is coming from the memories of Peter.

And so when we come to this fateful moment where Peter is the one who is being told by Jesus, the rooster will not crow twice before you deny me three times, who do you think would have remembered that better than anyone?

It would have been Peter. And so that's why I think Mark is giving us more information because it's pertaining to the one who is in view.

And Matthew and Luke are not contradicting anything. They're simply not giving all of the information.

And we've done this how many dozens of times since we started studying Mark. We see this throughout.

We see telescoping, that simply means to take a story and make it shorter or compress it or conflating it.

We see that throughout the four Gospels. This is why so many contradictions are assumed because people think the

Gospels were written like a modern -day historiography is written. And that's not the way they were written.

The writers of the Gospels all very clearly had theological reasons for writing what they wrote.

They were writing biography, but it wasn't really biography in the sense of how we understand biography.

They were writing theologically motivated biography. If you don't believe that, read

John. What is John's motivation? He tells you his motivation. These things have

I written that you may believe that Jesus is the Son of God. It's a theologically motivated writing.

He doesn't make any bones about it and therefore John's Gospels all over the map when it comes to like places and events because his is not intended to be strictly chronological.

It's not intended to be told as a narrative in the same way that Luke's is much more chronological.

Luke's is much more specific about times and places. All of the

Gospels have a different theological motivation. And understanding that helps us to understand it better.

We start our hermeneutics class this Sunday. And one of the things we have to come to terms with in our hermeneutics class is when studying the

Bible, we have to remember the Bible is written like any other book in the sense that it is nouns and verbs and adjectives and you know prepositions.

But at the same time it's not written like other books in that it is God's Word given to us in a specific way.

And it's intended to motivate us to believe. So anyhow, kind of went a little longer on that than I intended.

But the two rooster crowing twice thing should not throw us. But Peter says if I must die with you,

I will not deny you. Now next week we probably won't get there next week either, but in the weeks to come verses 66 to 72 prove

Jesus's prophecy correct. If you go down to verse 66, it's

Peter in the courtyard and the woman comes and says, you know, you you are also with the

Nazarene and he immediately begins to deny Jesus what you Yeah, what you talking about?

I ain't never met the guy and even curses says he he pronounces a curse and says that he didn't know

Jesus. That's an amazing reality that Peter would go from willing to cut off the ear of the

Malchus to being unwilling to say that he even knew Jesus. Jesus's prophecy comes true.

Now that all being said let's look at this event in the garden. And they went to a place called

Gethsemane and He said his disciples sit here while I pray. And he took with him

Peter 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.

Going a little further he fell on the ground and prayed if it were possible this hour might pass from him.

And he said verse 36 very important Abba Father All things are possible for you

Remove this cup from me Yet not what I will But what you will almost exactly quoted in Matthew 26 39 and in Luke 22 42

They all reference the same word and that is the word cup

They all begin with the same Phrase Father Mark's gospel gives a little bit more.

It says Abba Father, which is an endearing term of calling God Father and Jesus says

If it is possible remove this cup from me

Now the cup needs to be understood Because the cup itself is

Being used in a way that we normally don't use the language when

I talk about a cup In general, I'm talking about a cup out of which we drink and in that sense

Jesus is using the word in that way, but he's using it in a way to point to an

Old Testament principle and The Old Testament principle was the cup of wrath the cup of wrath

In the Old Testament throughout the Old Testament, you will read several passages where it refers to God storing up his wrath as It were like in a cup and on the day of his judgment taking that which is in that cup his stored up wrath against sinners and Pouring that wrath out

Upon them and so when Jesus says Take this cup from me

He is not referring to some kind of vessel that is literal but rather he is referring to the figurative cup of God's wrath

Which has been holding the wrath of sinners since the beginning and If you just have just a moment and you want to open your

Bibles very quickly turn with me to Isaiah 53 looking at beginning at verse 5

By the way, if you're unfamiliar Isaiah was written about 700 years before Christ and yet it points to Christ in several passages chapter 7 14 chapter 9 6 and Specifically this passage points to Jesus and it says

Surely he has borne our griefs carried our sorrows Yet we a street esteemed him stricken smitten by God and afflicted that phrase smitten by God It's very important because that is one of several in this passage that tells us what is happening on the cross smitten by God and afflicted

He was wounded for our transgressions He was crushed for our iniquities upon him the chastisement

That brought us peace and with his stripes we are healed

Don't want to get into that one right now That's been absconded with by many a false faith healer trying to say that through Jesus's cross

Every sickness is a mere faith belief away from being healed. It's not what it's referring to It's referring to our sin being taken by Christ.

It's not a promise of divine healing for every sickness But again, I said I wasn't going to get into it, but I did

All we like sheep have gone astray We have turned everyone to his own way and the Lord has laid upon him the iniquity of us all laid on him

The iniquity of So he has been smitten by God and laid upon him is our iniquity

He was oppressed He was afflicted yet He opened not his mouth like a lamb led to the slaughter and like a sheep before it shears the silence

So he opened not his mouth by oppression and judgment He was taken away and as for the his generation who has considered that he was cut off from the land of the living stricken for the transgression of my people again

Put that one stricken for transgression of The people not his own not his own transgression.

That's key we have to understand for what reason did Jesus die not for his sins, but for ours and Then it goes on to prophesy.

They made his grave with the wicked and rich man and his death Although he had done no violence. There was no deceit in his mouth yet.

It was the will this is the part I was trying to get yet. It was the will of the Lord to crush him will of the

Lord to crush him That is the key

It was the will of the Lord to crush him. He has put him to grief When his soul makes an offering guilt for guilt, he shall see his offspring.

He shall prolong his days The will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand now for sake of time.

We won't read the rest, but I I'm trying to drive to a point and I told I was talking brother

Andy I think Chris you I think we're talking about this beforehand, too There is a very real push today

By many people to try to deny the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement

Penal substitutionary atonement means that when Christ was on the cross He was taking the penalty for our sin that he was the substitute for us

And he was making an atonement between us and God bringing Reconciliation between the two and the way he did that was

God poured out his wrath on Christ in our place That's what we call penal substitutionary atonement and everybody in this church

We would all say a hearty. Amen because you've been preached that for 20 years I mean, that's that's what we preach as what we teach but there are many people that are starting with great vehemence

To deny that doctrine. I mean Eastern Orthodoxy completely denies it and many

Christians today are starting to they say oh, it's just Calvinistic doctrine. This is not Calvinism.

This is straight Bible This should be affirmed by Calvinist non -Calvinist

Because this is what the Bible teaches that on the cross. I put this event. I put this on Twitter I said on that cross when

Jesus died the wrath of God was satisfied Now the majority of people yeah, great, you know hearts and amens

But I received very several messages private messages emails things you should not believe in penal substitutionary atonement

And I was like from my cold dead hand man It's like you have to drag me away from it because this is what

I believe the Bible teaches and I believe it teaches It right here. I believe this type of wrath was pre

Prophesied rather by Isaiah That he would be smitten by God See the thing that we have to realize is everything that happened for on on Christ on the cross

Happened by the hand of God April or April Acts 4

How is that April 4? Acts 4 clearly says that what

Herod and Pontius Pilate did they did because God had determined that it would be done That God had determined from the beginning the cross that he is in fact

Was this was the plan? Smitten by God God laid upon him the iniquity of us all he was stricken for the transgression of the people not for his own and The will of the

Lord was to crush him having thought about all of this from Isaiah 53 and knowing that Christ in fact is

The Word of God made flesh that he certainly knows Isaiah 53 better than any of us he knows

What he means when he talks about that cup and when he talks about that cup. He's talking about that He's talking about what

God is fixing to do to him What the father is going to do to the

Son on the cross Not the Romans not the Jews Not the enemies of God, but God himself is

Going to punish his son in the place of us

This is why Paul would later say God did this so he could be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Christ Why those two phrases and in Romans 3 26 just and justifier

God can be just righteous Because he doesn't not punish sin he punishes it therefore he's righteous

But he's the justifier of those who have faith in Christ because he punishes the sin in Christ In just a few weeks.

I'm going to be in 2nd Corinthians 521. I'm gonna spend a whole Sunday You don't hear this again, by the way Because on whatever

Sunday I get to it 2nd Corinthians 521 says what anybody remember it God made him who knew no sin to become sin for us that we

Could become the righteousness of God in him now if all of that is true and Jesus Knows that it's true

Knows that it's prophesied from the foundation of the world Here comes the hard theological question

Why would he ever ask? For it to be Not done.

Is that not what he asked now? There's a ton of Ink that has been spilled in commentaries on to answer that question and There is

I think Difficulty in the question

Because no matter what answer we give We're going to find ourselves in somewhat of a difficult place

The RC Sproul and his lesson on this passage talked about st. Thomas Aquinas who was a great

Theologian in the Roman Catholic Church. I know that sounds like an oxymoron, but it's true He was a great theologian.

But yes, he was Roman Catholic theologian But Thomas Aquinas in Regarding when

Jesus said he didn't know the day or the hour Thomas Aquinas said well that he really did know but he didn't want to confuse the

Apostles So he told him he didn't know. What does that make Jesus if that's true? It makes him a liar. That's a problem.

I don't know where okay, where you come from where you go Jesus said something ain't true Even if it's a small little white lie, it's still lie.

And so we I don't think we can go there with Thomas on that But in regard to this question the question of Jesus saying

If there be another way How can we come to a conclusion

I will tell you as I said some people would say That Jesus was only asking this

Because he knew That his words would ring down through the ages and it would be for us an opportunity to know that there was no other way

That Christ was simply doing this for our benefit Well, I think that's true,

I don't think that's the only reason but I do agree that this is for our benefit It is for our benefit that Jesus said if there's another way and then he got up and went to the cross

Because he proved the answer was no And I've told people before I say if you ever want to prove the exclusivity of the death of Christ for sinners for salvation

Because a lot of people run right to John 14 6. I am the way the truth and the life No one comes to the

Father, but through me. I agree. That's a great passage. I preach it all the time. I love it But if you want to have more evidence for the exclusivity of Christ, it's right here

Because Jesus said if there be another way Take this cup from me and even though the voice of God is not recorded.

We know the answer The answer was there is no other way

How do we know because he went He didn't stand up and say whoo

Glad that's over. Yeah, God's established another way. No The answer was there is no other way for God to be just and the justifier of those who have faith in Christ This was the only way

So, why did Christ ask for There to be another way one

Certainly could be for our benefit and that is true, but it could also be

That when we consider the vera homo vera Deus nature of Christ that oftentimes we get very consumed with the vera

Deus and We sometimes lose sight of the vera homo

Christ is truly man and in his humanity There were times when he demonstrated frailty

He slept he wept he hungered And in this moment, even though it's not here if you were to go to Let me see.

Where is it? Luke's gospel it says that as he was praying

Sweat This is Luke 22 44 in agony He prayed more earnestly and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground

God doesn't sweat God doesn't bleed But God the

God man sweats and bleeds and so we are seeing this humanity pictured in this agony

You understand what I'm what I'm getting at now. I can't I don't want to go into Nestorianism Nestorianism so separates the humanity and the divinity of Christ that you can divide the two and we can't do that but we can say that there are aspects of Christ's nature that touches humanity such as his hunger and his thirst and his

Sleepiness and all those things they touch his humanity and as he weeps and as he cries and as I do believe literal blood

There is a there's a condition I don't know the name of it but doctors talk about it where the the capillaries begin to burst because of stress and our

Skin can literally bleed from the capillaries bursting and coming through the skin this is a very legitimate thing that can happen and very likely was what was happening here as Christ is praying and Blood is dripping from his pores

Thank you. Thank you This is What we see

Christ crying out He knows that in just a few short hours

He is going to be Enduring the wrath of God All of the wrath of God for every sin of Keith Foskey And all of you who believe but I just like to think of it just mine alone

Deserves an infinity and an eternity of God's punishment and Christ took it in six hours on the cross

Christ took an infinite amount of punishment in a finite amount of time on behalf of every believer

And beloved I can't I can't help but think his thought was if there's another way

You see and so I do think we are seeing here a legitimate cry of agony in preparation for a

Legitimate time of distress So that's my take do

I think it has other value? Yes, I think it values all of us But I don't think we should step and take it only in the sense of one thing

I think we can see it in its fullness that he is crying out to God Knowing what's coming?

And I don't think he didn't know I Think in this moment There is a cry of agony a legitimate cry so with that all being said

The next portion and we'll tie this up relatively quickly The next portion is simply the going back and forth with the

Apostles Going to them. Are you asleep? Could you not watch one hour and we see this multiple times throughout until verse 42 and The next thing we're going to see when we come back next week is we're going to see another use of the word immediately and mark verse 43 and Immediately while he was still speaking

Judas came so Mark's going to get us quickly into the trials of Christ and Jesus before the council and Jesus on the cross

But this this section here tonight. I hope Reminded us of some very important truths

If not anything else I hope it reminded us of the exclusivity of the sacrifice of Christ if we are trusting in anything else

Other than the finished work of Christ on the cross. We have placed in our faith in something that cannot save But if we are trusting fully in the finished work of Christ on the cross

Then we can know that it is what God has prescribed for salvation and what

Christ died to complete As he will say on the cross it is finished

Let us pray Father I thank you for your word. I pray that tonight you would in your mercy

Remind us Lord that when Jesus said if there be another way the answer was no

Because he is the only way the truth in the life May we follow him may we tell others of him

May we be reminded daily of our need for him in Christ's name.