Will you turn with me to Matthew chapter 26, and listen as I read verses 36 through 46 for the Scripture? Reading Matthew chapter 26, verse 36 through verse 46. Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples, sit here while I go and pray yonder. And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be very sorrowful and very heavy. Then saith he unto them, my soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto death. Tarry here and watch with me. 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. And he cometh unto the disciples and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, what could ye not watch with me one hour? Watch and pray that ye enter not into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. 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. It's very interesting that this second petition in the Matthean account is slightly different from the first. There may be some question about whether much should be made over it. But it does seem to me that there is an advance in this petition. You will notice he does not say, nevertheless, not as I will. Then he also puts it in such a way as that it appears that he has received the answer from the Father and now accepts that. We shall talk in a moment about how this, of course, takes place in his human nature, accepts it, and says simply, thy will be done. And he came and found them asleep again, for their eyes were heavy. And he left them and went away again and prayed the third time saying the same. Then cometh he to his disciples and saith unto them, sleep on now and take your rest. Behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Rise. Let us be going. Behold, he is at hand that doth betray me. May the Lord bless this reading of his word.
Let's bow together in prayer. Father, we confess as we contemplate the incident that we shall seek to expound this morning, that it is far beyond our comprehension and far beyond our ability to adequately do justice to what happened when our Lord Jesus was upon that ground crying out these very, very significant O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me. How limited, Lord, is our human understanding of divine truth. And we Confess that we look forward with great anticipation to the future. When we shall come into a deeper understanding of all that was involved in the accomplishment of our salvation. We want to worship Thee. We want to praise Thee. We have, Lord, by virtue of the ministry of the Holy Spirit, the conviction of the majesty of the Divine Word and the truthfulness of it, and the truthfulness and graciousness and mercy of our great God. We know, Lord, there are depths in Thy person and being which we shall never be able to comprehend. But we look forward with anticipation to the unfolding of the richness of the person of our God. And so, Lord, we thank Thee and we praise Thee. We bless Thee for a Savior who loved us and loosed us from our sins through the sacrifice of his own blood. We ask, Lord, Thy blessing upon this congregation, upon each individual member of it. The old, the young and the children. O Father, may the blessings that Thou dost have for each one of us be truly ours in experience. Give the young vision, give them dedication. And give them, O Lord, the comprehension to determine their own priorities for their lives. And if it should please thee, Lord, may the interests of our great God be paramount. And for those of us, Lord, who are older, Lord, we pray that Thou wilt enable us to use our time to glorify Thy name. We pray that if there should be someone here present who does not yet have the assurance of everlasting life. That that may come through the preaching of the Word. We pray that the Holy Spirit may use the Scriptures and the truths of them to bring them to life. We pray for the entire Church of Jesus Christ and ask, Lord, Thy blessing upon each individual member. How wonderful it is, Lord, to know that we are part of that which Thou hast been doing. And we praise Thee for the membership that we enjoy through faith in the Lord Jesus. We pray that Thou wilt enlarge the Church today through the preaching of the Word, if it be Thy will. But strengthen us and edify us and build us up in our faith. And enable us, Lord, to touch the lives of those outside the body who belong to the elect of our great triune God. We pray, Lord, Thy blessing upon this country, upon our President, upon our government. We thank Thee for the privilege of life in the United States of America. And, Lord, we pray also Thy blessing upon every activity of the members of this congregation. That has as its ultimate goal the glorification of our God. Be with us throughout this particular service and the service of this evening. For Jesus sake. Amen.
Many of you who at least are a little Older than the young ones in our congregation will be familiar with Winston Churchill's great history of World War II. Many of you remember that one of the volumes of his world war history was entitled the Gathering Storm. I think that one may liken the experience of our Lord Jesus in His earthly life to a gathering storm. And if we may, for the sake of identification, say that the transfiguration account at which it became evident that the suffering of the Lord Jesus was plainly before him. If we may call that account the gathering storm of the life of our Lord. When we come to the agony in Gethsemane, we see the first sheets of rain falling from the skies.
It is well known, as one studies the Scriptures, that at the summit of the life of our Lord Jesus, he saw in his human nature the cross as the consummation of his ministry. The form may not have been so clear, but the fact was very clear. Now let me say right at the beginning that when I say in his human nature, I want to stress that because, of course, from his divine nature, from the fact that he was a divine person, we of course, are certain that he knew all of the facts of his life from the beginning to the end, from time immemorial. We are speaking in the sphere of his humanity, as is evidenced by the fact that when this account is over, the angels came and ministered to Him. God does not need the ministry of angels. He may subsist without them. And so we are speaking in the area of our Lord's humanity.
Now, coming to this idea that he did at the summit of his life, see his ministry in his human nature. You can notice this, for example, in his temptation, it is evident that the cross is seen by him in measure. Then at Cana of Galilee, when the wedding took place, the things that happened there remind him of the fact that his hour had not yet come when he was on the mount. Rather, when he was on the mountainside and fed the 5,000. It was at that time too that the lines of his suffering were plain to Him. On the mount of transfiguration. That was seen when the Greeks came and said we would see Jesus. That provoked in him a truly remarkable response, if one does not understand that it suggested again the fact that his suffering was not far in the future. When they came to the disciples and said we would see Jesus, it suggested to him immediately that it would not be long before the message that he had come to proclaim to the nation. Israel would go out to the four corners of the earth and would comprehend the gentiles as well. So when they said, being Greeks, we would see Jesus, it suggested to him that fact and reminded him that his suffering was not far off. Right at that time. He said, now is my soul troubled because the thought of the cross is brought before him again prominently. And what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour. But for this cause came I unto this hour. Father, glorify thy name.
So it is evident, then, that our Lord entered into, in his human nature the personal experience of the gradual comprehension in full of what he was going to suffer. The Church, in its study and in its discussion of the Passion of our Lord, has acknowledged that there was a progress in the sufferings of our Lord. We know that the latter part of his suffering is so great that it was given a special name in the Heidelberg Catechism. It is said that he suffered all the time that he lived on earth, but especially at the end of his life. The Christian Church came to call that the Passio Magna, or the Great Suffering. In fact, the Lord Jesus seems to specifically support that, for he says, with desire, have I desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. So He Himself thought of his cross as the climax of the suffering, the Passio Magna, the great passion. Though the Passion itself comprehends in measure all of his previous lifetime.
6 · Johnson asserts the multilayered agency in Christ's passion: the Son volunteered, the world acted, Satan opposed, but the Father sovereignly orchestrated all—not merely alongside but through these secondary wills—to accomplish redemption, as testified by both Testaments
Now we know also that the suffering of our Lord was not simply of his own doing. We know, of course, that the actions of the world are subject to the providential hand of God. It is true, Mr. Pryor is right. God has not lost his grip on things. This is beautifully seen in the work of our Lord's redemption. For while it is true that the world was responsible for the death of our Lord Jesus, it is also true that He Himself gave himself voluntarily. And it is also true that not only working alongside the will of the Son and the will of the world, but actually working through. Through these wills. There was the ultimate will of the Father, who was in control of all of the experiences and all of the events in the life of our Lord. You remember that in the Old Testament it is, thou hast brought me into the dust of death. It pleased the Lord to bruise him. In the New Testament, the Lord Jesus says, shortly after this incident, the cup that my Father hath given, shall I not drink it? It is the Father that has given him the cup. So working through the activities of men, the Father accomplishes his purpose. We see that, I think, beautifully here. The sufferings of our Lord were the work of the Son. They were the work of the world. They were the work of Satan. But ultimately and primarily they were the work of God.
7 · Johnson identifies the theological purpose of the Father's orchestration: the accomplishment of the redemptive sacrifice that inaugurated the New Covenant as the sole ground of salvation for all the elect
It was he who was accomplishing the redemptive sacrifice that would inaugurate the new covenant by which all who are saved have salvation.
8 · Johnson advances an argument from embarrassment: the early church's inclusion of Christ's distressed prayer in three Gospels—a portrait they would never invent given their belief in His deity—proves the account's historicity and the Gospels' reliability
No one would question the historicity of the account in Gethsemane. It seems to me that its historicity is beyond question. The early church would never have created this picture of our Lord wallowing upon the ground, crying out, o my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me. An early church that believed in the deity of the Son of God would not ever have created this picture of him. Which suggests so many questions. The very fact that they included it in their accounts. We see it in Matthew, and we see it in Mark, and we see it in Luke. They all thought it was that important. The very fact that we see this account in the Gospels is evidence of the truthfulness of these accounts.
9 · Johnson documents historical opposition to Gethsemane from Celsus, Julian the Apostate, and an unnamed man under Henry IV—all of whom mocked Christ's distress as cowardice by contrasting it with their own fearless deaths, setting up the apologetic need to explain the agony
In the history of the early church, there were individuals in the world who took advantage of the picture that is presented of our Lord in Gethsemane. Celsus in the second century and Julian the Apostate in the fourth, all jeered at our Lord's suffering in Gethsemane, pointing out that it was an illustration of cowardice and pusillanimity as over against the magnanimity with which a person ought to die. There is an historical account of a wretch in the day of Henry IV of France, who, when he was going to his execution, made fun of our Lord dying in the garden and on the cross in such evident suffering and such evident dereliction of spirit, while he himself, this wretch, was going to his death fearless and courageous.
10 · Johnson transitions from apologetic defense of historicity back to expositional focus, reaffirming Gethsemane's historical reliability and signaling the move toward narrative re-entry into the scene itself
So this is an account that is truly historical, I think. Of course, all of the accounts of the Gospel are historical, but this is one that is extremely important and it is clearly historical.
11 · Johnson reconstructs the scene narratively, contrasting Jerusalem's oblivious security with the dreadfulness of the moment, tracing the journey from upper room to Gethsemane and noting the garden's name—'winepress'—as symbolic foreshadowing of the soul-crushing trial to come
That night, if you had been looking for him, you would have noticed the profound Sodom like security, as someone has said, that pervaded the city of Jerusalem at this time with Jacob, you might well have cried out, how dreadful is this place. A prayer in the upper room had been concluded. The hymns had been sung. The great Halil had been finished. And while the notes may have been wafted across the breeze of that night, the apostles, the eleven with our Lord had left the upper room and had made their way down toward the brook. Kidron. They had crossed over the brook, had gone up a little bit of a rise, and there had come to the garden of Gethsemane. Gethsemane incidentally means winepress. So it suggests in itself that this is to be a place of struggle, a deep struggle of soul.
12 · Johnson continues the narrative reconstruction, moving the listener spatially from the eight outer apostles to the inner three (Peter, James, John) found asleep to the solitary Christ at the garden's center, building dramatic focus toward the prayer
And that night, if you had been there, you would have come upon the eight. Matthew, Simon, some of the lesser known of the apostles. Eight of them were on the outside where they had been left by the Lord Jesus. You might have missed Judas, but he was off finishing his nefarious deed of betraying the Lord Jesus. Then, as you moved into the garden, you would have come across the three of the apostles who were so often with our Lord in the more intimate experiences of his life. Peter, James, and John. And you may have been surprised that there they were, flopped out asleep. And then going on a little farther into the garden, you would have noticed a Lord.
13 · Johnson interprets the night as a moment of sifting for all parties—Judas revealed as chaff, the apostles as mixed, but Christ as all wheat—setting His purity in sharp contrast to all others as He enters His supreme trial
Things were happening that night. Judas was being sifted and was being shown to be all chaff. Peter and the rest of the apostles were being sifted as well, and shown to be part chaff and part wheat. But our Lord is entering into the greatest experience of all. And of course he is all wheat.
14 · Johnson connects the cup in Gethsemane to the cup of the New Covenant from the Last Supper, establishing that Christ was praying about the Passio Magna—His atoning death
The text of Scripture says in the first verse of the passage that we are looking at that the Lord Jesus said, sit here while I go and pray yonder. I know it might seem to be a spirit of braggadocio that leads an expositor to say, I think I know what he was saying, when there is no statement in Scripture to the effect that there is particular prayer that he was praying. But if you will put this affair by the side of the last Passover and the first Lord's Supper, you will notice that there is one word that appears in both of them that is very significant. And of course, it's the word cup. O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup. Very specific cup. Incidentally, I'll say something about it in just a moment. But this cup. Cup. And we remember that in the last Passover and the first Lord's Supper, he had, According to verse 27 of this passage, taken the cup and gave thanks and gave it to them, saying, drink you all, y' all, remember, drink y' all of it. For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. So the cup suggests the shedding of the blood by which the covenant was inaugurated. So it seems to me very, very certain that what our Lord was praying about when he went beyond the three, off into the center of the garden by himself and offered his petition to God, it was surely prayer in view of the Passion, the passio magna, which he must soon experience. So he went in to pray, and it was the most significant praying that Jesus Christ had ever done. Now, the text of Scripture says that he began to be sorrowful. He began to be very heavy. The new Scofield edition of the King James Version has very depressed. It seems to me that is a very weak rendering, because depression suggests maladjustment Today. I think the way the old Authorized Version translates rendered, it is perfectly good. He began to be very sorrowful and very heavy, heavy of spirit because of the suffering and the trial that was just before him. It was evident that if you had looked at him, you would have noticed the agitation of spirit which characterized our Lord. It was visible before he spoke. We read in verse 39, after he has said that my soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto death. Someone has said, I think it was Clarence McCartney, the pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Pittsburgh and a very noted expositor in his day, that this was a literal fact, that he was sorrowful even unto death, and that one more pang and his physical frame would have given way. We probably cannot know that, but these words are very strong words. He was exceedingly sorrowful even unto death. Then, putting the accounts together, it says that our Lord went farther into the garden. He fell on his knees first, Luke tells us. So he began to pray on his knees, which was probably the natural place or position for him to be in when he prayed. But evidently he could not even stand being upon his knees, and then fell on his face on the ground, groveling on the ground like a worm, reminding us of the statement in Psalm 22, I am a worm and no man, our Lord falls upon his face upon the ground. The agitation is obvious. It's deep. It controls him. And it's then that he cries out, o my Father, if it be possible. One of the old commentators, a Puritan by the name of Robert Trail, whose works have recently been republished, has a comment concerning this that I think is very appropriate. He said, he filled the silent night with his crying and watered the cold earth with his tears, more precious than the dew of Hermon, or any moisture next unto his own blood that ever fell on God's earth since the creation. No wonder he is called the man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.
15 · Johnson uses the prayer's dual address—'O my Father' invoking divine love, followed by 'let this cup pass' confronting divine holiness—to correct the modern imbalance that stresses God's love while neglecting His justice, showing both attributes converge in the atonement
O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me. Incidentally, there are two great themes in all of the atoning work of the Lord Jesus. And of course, there is the theme of the love of God, which our 20th century so so often likes to stress, even to the exclusion of the other. Our God is a loving God. Our God is a merciful God. Our God is a forgiving God. All very true, but also false if not seen against the other things that make up the character of our Lord. The attribute of his love and mercy is great, but the attributes of his holiness and his justice are just as significant for us. You can see when he cries out, o my Father, and you think of the love of God and the mercy of God and all of those things that minister to us of the divine compassion. But then you hear this one say, o my Father, if it be possible, let this cup passed from me. And we're reminded of the other aspect of our Lord's character, his holiness and his justice. And our Lord Jesus honored the sanctity of the law of God and what he required for redemption.
16 · Johnson unpacks the metaphor: 'cup' signifies not mere death but violent, sacrificial, blood-shedding death—the antitype of Old Testament sacrifices—without which atonement is impossible, ruling out natural death as redemptive
Now, isn't it striking that he says cup. That, of course, is a figure. It's a figure of his death. That's plain. He's just said, this cup is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed, not spill, but shed. Remember, as we said last Sunday, it's a word of sacrifice. It's a word of slaughter. It suggests the shedding of a sacrificial animal. In this case, the antitype, the Lord Jesus. He was sacrificed for our sins. He could never have atoned if he had died of a heart attack. When the Bible speaks of the blood of Christ, it speaks of more than simply death. It's violent death. It's sacrificial death that is in mine, this cup.
17 · Johnson catalogs the metaphors Jesus used for His death—baptism (immersion), road (journey), and cup—showing each captures a dimension of the passion, with Denny's phrase 'the cup which our sins had mingled' making the judicial aspect explicit
We've had other figures. In the Gospel of Matthew. He said. He spoke about his baptism with which he should be baptized. You think of him being plunged into the water as John the Baptist had plunged the repentant Israelites into the water. That's a figure of his death, his baptism. Then, of course, he has spoken of his death as a road. He has said, the Son of man, God, as it is written concerning him, but woe unto that man through whom the Son of Man is betrayed. So he has spoken of his death as a baptism. He has spoken of his death as a road or as a way that he must traverse. And now here he speaks of it as a cup. James Denny, the Scottish theologian, said it was the cup which our sins had mingled.
18 · Johnson emphasizes the definite article—'this cup'—to show Christ was not praying about a generic suffering but the specific, eternally purposed cup ordained in the trinitarian covenant of redemption before creation, now arriving in time
So it is the cup that he speaks about here. Did you notice, too, that he says, this cup. It is not a cup. This cup. It is this unique cup. It is this cup that is given him by a hand that is extended from the hills of eternity. It is the cup concerning which the eternal Trinity had made their compact in the ages past. It is the cup of the everlasting covenant made between the persons of the triune God. So here is the moment in time about which our great God had spoken, discussed, planned throughout all the centuries of time before this and even before that, into the ages past. What a significant moment this was. O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me. This cup, the one we've been talking about, the one we've had upon our hearts from the ages past.
19 · Johnson poses the sermon's central exegetical question—what does Christ's petition mean?—serving as the hinge statement pivoting from exposition of the text's context and language to evaluation of competing interpretations
Now, what does he mean when he says, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me. What does this tortured petition mean?
20 · Johnson presents the first alternative interpretation: a Dutch commentator argues Christ prayed not to die in the garden under Satan's assault before reaching the cross, concluding redemption was accomplished in Gethsemane rather than Calvary because Christ was distressed there but triumphant on the cross
There is a fairly well known Dutch commentator whose writings I have read a good bit. He has an interesting interpretation of this. He has said that what our Lord was really praying was that he would not die under the assault of Satan in the garden, because if he should die in the garden, he would not be able to accomplish the conclusion of the work on the cross. And this commentator goes on to suggest, it's very suggestive in certain ways, that it was in the garden that the Son suffered from the Father. It was on the cross a few hours later that he suffered from the world. Perhaps we could add, it was in the garden that he suffered from the Father and from Satan. It was on the cross that he suffered from men. And it is the conclusion of this author that he actually accomplished the redemption for all intents and purposes in the garden rather than on the cross. The evidence of this is that he was troubled and. And in deep distress in the garden. But on the cross he is triumphant. He looks out, he sees Mary, and he turns from Mary to John and says, woman, behold thy son. And then to John, behold thy mother. He is in complete control when he hangs upon the cross, but he's not in control in that way in the garden.
21 · Johnson acknowledges the Dutch view has respected proponents—Adam Clark and even Spurgeon—who placed significant atoning weight in Gethsemane, setting up his forthcoming disagreement with figures he otherwise admires
It's a very interesting interpretation. It reminds us of something Adam Clark said. He said Jesus paid more in the garden than he did on the cross. Even Charles Haddon Spurgeon, whose writings and ministry you know, I admire very much, said that as far as he was concerned, it would be wrong to say that our Lord Jesus accomplished his atonement only on the cross.
22 · Johnson stakes his position against the Dutch interpretation and Spurgeon: atonement was accomplished on the cross, not in Gethsemane, previewing the biblical argument to follow
Now, it's not often that I must disagree with Mr. Spurgeon, but in this case, I must admit that I do disagree. I think atonement was accomplished on the cross.
23 · Johnson narrates his personal encounter with Harry Ironside as a seminary student wrestling with the Dutch commentator's view, using Ironside's blunt dismissal to illustrate the traditional Reformed position he's defending
Many years ago, when I was a theological student at the seminary here, I was making a study of this very incident and reading this Dutch commentator It's been 30 years ago now, but I can still remember reading those pages when which I have read since. And I was still in the insurance business back in those days. I used to work and going to seminary at the same time. And I remember we had some special meetings in Schofield Memorial Church, which in those days was located down on Harwood and Brown. And since I was working in the Cotton Exchange building in an insurance office rather than going home, I went on over to the church. After I finished my work for that afternoon, waiting for the meeting that night. When I came in, Dr. Harry Ironside, who was the speaker that night, was sitting over by himself and nobody else was there but just the two of us. So I thought, I have my chance. Here is a well known Bible teacher and I have this question I've been wrestling with. I'll go over and ask him a question. I was a little embarrassed about sitting on the same pew with him. So I went over and sat in the pew right behind him and leaned over and said, Dr. Ironside, do you mind if I ask you a question? It was obvious he did mine. He turned around and thought, well, I know I could see it all over his face. Now, what kind of stupid question will this young theolog be asking me? But with the brashness of a young theological student, I said, Dr. Ironside, I have been reading something that's very interesting. I'm kind of attracted to it. I'd like to know your opinion. I unfolded all that I've spoken to you about here to him. And he just looked back to me with a disdainful look on his face and said simply, I believe atonement was accomplished on the cross.
24 · Johnson completes the illustration by citing the text that settled the question for him—Colossians 1:20, 'he made peace by the blood of the cross'—which he takes as definitive biblical proof against locating atonement in Gethsemane
And as he said it, there was a text of the epistle to of the Colossians that came home to me right as he was speaking. I guess the Holy Spirit must have thought, well, now we will settle the question once and for all. And he unfolded and gave me this particular text. And as he said those words, the words of the Apostle Paul from Colossians chapter one came home to me in which the apostle says, he made peace by the blood, blood of the cross. I've never had any doubt after that that atonement was accomplished on the cross and not anywhere else. He made peace by the blood of the cross. Other things may be essential, other things may be important and necessary as preparation, but he made atonement by the blood of the cross.
25 · Johnson formally dismisses the Dutch commentator's interpretation, transitioning to the next alternative view he must evaluate
Therefore, I never have been able to accept this very interesting theory.
26 · Johnson introduces Barnhouse's interpretation: Barnhouse argued Christ couldn't have been praying for deliverance from the cross since He'd already predicted His death three times, and praying against God's will would disqualify Him as Savior
Many of you know, I was led to The Lord by Donald Gray Barnhouse and have a great high regard for Dr. Barnhouse. But Dr. Barnhouse had a peculiar interpretation of this passage. It was Dr. Barnhouse's point that if our Lord said, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me, he would be praying that he should not go to the cross. But he has already, several times, at least 3 clear times Previous to this, said he was going to Jerusalem, he was going to suffer, he was going to die, be put to death, he was going to be buried, and he was going to rise again on the third day. So Dr. Barnau said, how can the Son of God pray, O my Father, let this cup pass from me, when he has already said that he was going to the cross. Dr. Barnaus went on to say that if he did pray that he couldn't be our Savior, because he would have prayed something outside the will of God.
27 · Johnson explicates and refutes Barnhouse's interpretation—that Christ prayed against eternal death—by turning Barnhouse's own logic against him: since Christ predicted His resurrection, He couldn't have been praying against eternal death any more than against crucifixion
Well, I do appreciate Dr. Barnaus very much. I have learned a great many things from him and still learn things from him. I cannot accept this. Because you remember our Lord said that he was going to go to Jerusalem, he was going to suffer, he was going to die, and he was going to be raised again on the third day. Well, now, Dr. Barnhouse's interpretation is that since he was not praying that he should not die on the cross, he must have been praying that he should not die eternally. So that it was a prayer concerning his eternal death. And when he said, O my Father, let this cup passed from me, he was saying, o God, let me not die the second death. Let me not die eternally. Let me come through this experience to life. Of course he did do that. But the very words that our Lord used to announce his death were words that announced his resurrection. He said, on the third day I will rise again from the dead. So how is it possible, on Dr. Barnaus interpretation, for our Lord to pray, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup of eternal death pass from me, since he had already said he was going to rise again on the third day. The very thing that causes Dr. Barnaus to reject the traditional interpretation argues against his own interpretation.
28 · Johnson graciously dismisses Barnhouse's view while honoring his mentor's memory, using eschatological perspective to soften the polemic and transition to the traditional interpretation
So I cannot accept that now. I don't think think that he will meet me in heaven and say, lewis never should have said that, never should have spoken against me there. I think I'm going to be able to say, I think you were wrong at that point, Dr. Barnhouse, but time will tell.
29 · Johnson endorses the traditional interpretation: Christ was praying for deliverance from the cross if it aligned with the Father's will, immediately qualifying the petition with submission—'not my will, but Thine'—which guards against any charge of rebellion
The Christian church has interpreted this traditionally as a prayer that if it should be within the Lord's Will this way of the cross might not be taken. In other words, it was a prayer of deliverance from the cross, if it should be the will of God. I think that is what is meant here. It seems to me very plainly that what our Lord is saying is, o my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me nevertheless, not what I will, but what thou wilt. In other words, he guarded this petition by the expression of his total willingness to do the will of God, if that was necessary.
30 · Johnson illustrates the traditional view's clarity through his daughter's childhood answer to whether Christ sinned in praying—she immediately grasped He was simply asking if the death was necessary while submitting to the Father's will, showing the interpretation's natural fit
Many years ago, my daughter, when she was just about 13 years old, came home from school when I was studying this account, and I was going over these things. And I've always felt that it was good to ask the children what things meant as well as to ask the theologians, because sometimes the children see clearer than the theologians. In fact, I guess we could probably say very often in a congregation like this, which is used to studying the Word of God, many of our children see things that the greatest contemporary theologians do not see at all. For that we give thanks to God. I asked my daughter, I said, do you think our Lord Jesus sinned when he prayed, since he had said he was going to die? O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me nevertheless, not my will, but Thine be done. I remember her saying, oh, no, Daddy, he was not sinning. He was just asking, was it necessary that the death transpire. And of course, we could add in his human nature.
31 · Johnson concludes his defense of the traditional view: Christ faced a genuine trial in His humanity with no sin, there was no easy path to Calvary, and the testing occurred within His human consciousness, not His divine omniscience
That's the traditional interpretation the Christian Church has put on this. I see no reason for abandoning tradition. It was a testing, it was a trial that he must face. But there is no sin, you know, there is no easy Calvary, even for our Lord. And let me stress, it was in our Lord's hand, human nature, that this trial was taking place.
32 · Johnson notes the three-fold repetition of the prayer, the angelic strengthening (confirming the trial was in Christ's humanity), and Christ's triumphant acceptance—'shall I not drink it?'—showing He successfully navigated the test and emerged resolved to go to the cross
Now he prays the second petition. I will not, for the sake of time, say anything about it. And finally he prays the same word for a third time, after which the angel of God came, strengthening him. The angel's coming and strengthening him is impotence. That this was in his human nature. It is in that that the trial truly takes place. In a moment, the Lord Jesus, in the midst of the garden, when the Roman soldiers come with Judas, stands up and triumphantly says, the Father, which the cup hath given me. The cup which the Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? So he has triumphantly traversed the this test on the way to Calvary.
33 · Johnson pivots from the hermeneutical question (what did the prayer mean?) to the theological question (why the agony?), invoking the Greek liturgy's language of 'unknown sufferings' and acknowledging the inexhaustibility of the mystery even in eternity
May I conclude with a couple of questions? Why the agony of Gethsemane? Why the Shrinking. The Greek liturgy says that when our Lord suffered, they were unknown sufferings. I grant that no one of us in this auditorium, least of all I, understands perfectly the sufferings of our Lord Jesus. In fact, I think after we've been in heaven for a thousand years, we'll understand more. But we'll just be beginning to understand what happened when our Lord suffered in Calvary. At Calvary, when we've been there for thousands and thousands of years, we still will be learning some of the reasons why our Lord suffered and what it really meant for him to suffer so. These were his unknown sufferings.
34 · Johnson begins a series of insufficient explanations for the agony, starting with broken family ties—acknowledging Christ's perfect love for Mary and His family would have caused genuine grief, but insisting this cannot account for the magnitude of His distress
But why did he who promised peace seem so emotionally depressed, heavy, upset? Was it the grief of brother, broken family ties? Nobody ever loved as our Lord did. Nobody ever loved his father and mother as our Lord did. The Old Testament says that we are to honor our father and mother. No one ever more perfectly fulfilled that than the Lord Jesus. Was it the grief of these broken family ties? He was to leave Mary. He was to leave his family. Well, I'm sure there was grief in his human nature, but it cannot explain the agony.
35 · Johnson considers loneliness and misunderstanding as causes—acknowledging Christ experienced perfect isolation, His disciples fleeing as prophesied, and even John absent from His support—but again judges this insufficient to explain the agony's intensity
Was it the loneliness of fear and misunderstanding? Human fear? I don't think anybody was ever more misunderstood than our Lord Jesus Christ. Christians are misunderstood by members of their family who are not Christians. Christians are misunderstood by the world who are not Christians. They do not understand. But when you magnify that to infinity, you have some idea of our Lord's misunderstanding by others. He said, smite the shepherd and the sheep shall be scattered abroad. They did not understand. Was it the loneliness of misunderstanding? He said, according to the prophet, I have trodden the winepress alone, and of the people there was none with me. When he was hanging on the cross, he was not there supporting him. Peter was not there supporting him. The other apostles were not there supporting him. Even John, the one who leans on his breast, is not there supporting him. They all forsook him and fled. The Scriptures say, well, that was great, but that doesn't explain the agony.
36 · Johnson considers the shame of crucifixion—death as a common criminal, the eternal God numbered with transgressors—acknowledging this was real agony but still insufficient to explain Gethsemane's intensity
Was it the shame of the Roman gibbet? For after all, when a person died by crucifixion, he was dying as a criminal. He was obedient unto death, and such a death as a death of the cross. The Greek text of Philippians 2:8 says, stressing the kind of death that that he died the death of a common criminal. Think of it. He was numbered with the transgressors, the eternal God with the transgressing multitude of vile, wicked, sinful men. That was no doubt agony. But that cannot explain the Agony of Gethsemane.
37 · Johnson considers whether the agony stemmed from uncertainty about God's will—explaining that in His humanity, Christ had to discover the Father's will daily just as we do, though unlike us He always obeyed once it was revealed—but concludes even this anguish of suspense cannot fully explain Gethsemane
Was it the anguish of suspense over God's will? We sometimes forget the Lord Jesus had to find the will of God, just as you and I find the will of God in his human nature. Now, the difference between our Lord and us is when we come to know the will of God, we still have the further problem of obedience, which is so often beyond us. In our Lord's case, he learned obedience through the things which he suffered. And he never disobeyed, obeyed. When the will of God was made known to him by the Father, he implicitly obeyed, but he did not necessarily know what the will of the Father was for him. Next he said, as a matter of fact, the words that he spoke, they were given to him by the Father. The things that he did, they were given to him by the Father. So each day he had as a human being to pass through the experience of the finding the will of God. So was it the anguish of suspense over God's will? Was it our Lord crying upon the ground in Gethsemane? O Father, is this truly thy will? And is this the time? Is this the hour? Well, that would be, of course, agony. But again, I don't think it explains the agony of Gethsemane.
38 · Johnson considers demonic opposition—Christ's own identification of the hour as 'the hour of darkness'—but curtly dismisses this as the ultimate explanation despite acknowledging it as a real factor
Was it the hellish ordeal of demonic opposition? He said himself, this is your hour, the hour of darkness. So was it the struggle with Satan? Is this the reason for the agony? No.
39 · Johnson considers the horror of a holy God coming into contact with sin—using the analogy of an innocent girl forced into a brothel, magnified to infinity—as sufficient to cause hematidrosis (bloody sweat), yet still judges this horror insufficient to fully explain the agony
Was it the horror of contact with sin? He was exceeding sorrowful. He's a man astonished, alarmed, taken aback. Because now this holy Son of God must come into contact with the curse. Is it really the fact that he's thinking about what it means to be identified with human evil? I know that must have been agony for him. That accounts for the hematidrisis, or the perspiring of the great drops of blood, great gouts of blood, in which the intense agony forces the blood out through the veins. Some of the capillaries of the sweat glands break and the blood is mingled with the perspiration. We say perspiration down south. But anyway, that was great. That suffering was tremendous. I am sure. If you. If you could just think for one moment of a little girl, innocent in measure, holy, brought up in a lovely home, taught the word of God, and then at age 6, 7, 8, 9, being forced to go to live in a house of prostitution. A revulsion that comes over the spirit at thinking about something like that. Magnify it to infinity and you have only a faint understanding of what it must have meant. For the Son of God to come into contact with sin, that would be agony for him. But while that's agony, I don't think that accounts for the agony of Gethsemane.
40 · Johnson delivers his thesis: the agony is explained only by Christ's anticipation of bearing divine condemnation, the curse of the broken law, becoming the sin offering, and experiencing eternal death as our substitute—no lesser explanation suffices
You see, I don't think there is any way to explain this other than to say it was the agony of the anticipation of the divine condemnation upon sin. It was the agony of the curse of the broken law. It was the agony of becoming the sin offering. It was the agony of the contemplation of the experiencing of eternal death. For us, that's the only thing that can explain this.
41 · Johnson grounds his thesis in lexical evidence: the Greek word for 'very heavy' etymologically means 'away from home,' foreshadowing the separation Christ would fully experience in His cry of dereliction—'My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken me?'—the only explanation for His groveling in Gethsemane
You know the word that is used In Matthew, chapter 37, he began to be sorrowful and very heavy. That word in the Greek text is a word which in its derivation means away from home. He began to feel away from home. He began to feel sorrowful, something of the separation that would ultimately manifest itself fully and completely when he cried out, my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? It is the agony of being forsaken because he has become the sin offering for sinners. That's the only thing that can explain our Lord wallowing and groveling in the ground, crying out, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me. Nevertheless, not my will but Thine be done.
42 · Johnson uses the contrast between Christ's agonized death and the saints' peaceful deaths to refute the exemplary theory of atonement, concluding that Gethsemane proves Christ died as a penal substitute bearing divine judgment—something believers will never experience because He bore it for them
And if this is the only way, he says, in a moment, thy will be done. Death and the curse were in our cup, O Christ, Twas full for thee. Now you know. There are people who tell us that our Lord died as an example. Isn't that amazing how anyone can read the Bible and say, the Lord Jesus died simply as an example? We know he died as an example, but simply as an example. How could you explain this? If our Lord is the example of the way we should die, he is not our Lord. Why should we die wallowing upon the ground? Why should we die crying out over, O my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Even the saints of God have died better than that. Outwardly speaking, they have died with words of thanksgiving and praise upon their lips. No, the inadequacy of the exemplary view of the sufferings of our Lord is never more easily seen than in Gethsemane and later in Calvary. He died as a penal substitute for our sins. He died there under the judgment of God, something you and I will never know, never could know. And thank God we shall not know if we have, by the grace of God, come to know him as our substitute in whom we have already borne our sins.
43 · Johnson signals the sermon's conclusion, transitioning from theological exposition to practical application while acknowledging time constraints
Well, my second question. Time is Up. So I'll just mention this. What's the application of this?
44 · Johnson draws three applications: Christ's suffering qualifies Him as a high priest we may approach boldly; His prayer models the power of submission; and every Christian petition must follow His pattern—'not my will, but Thine be done'—not just the request but the surrender
Of course, we think of the perfection of our high priest. We know he is the kind of high priest to whom we may come boldly because of these sufferings. We know the power of prayer as we see it in his own life. We can see the way that we have victory, shuddering human nature yielding to the indomitable will of God. When we learn to pray, we must learn to pray not only some of what our Lord prayed, but all of his prayer. O my Father, if it be possible, nevertheless, not my will, but Thine be done. Every human petition should be prayed in the light of those last words.
45 · Johnson identifies the progression from Gethsemane's 'I'm willing' to Calvary's 'it is finished' as the primary application, showing the journey from submission to completion of the redemptive work
But most of all we learn the path Passion of our Lord for his soul. Someone has said in Gethsemane, he said, in effect, I'm willing on Calvary. He said, it is finished.
46 · Johnson illustrates the necessity of atonement with a story of a Scottish officer who crossed out 'for Christ's sake' from his prayer book, believing God needed no coaxing to forgive—until a preacher explained the sanctity of God's law and the atonement, leading to conversion and recognition that forgiveness is only 'for Christ's sake
There is a story that one of the expositors of the Word of God tells about a visit that he had to a Scottish naval officer who was retired after they had had a lovely day in Scotland. He was asked by this Scottish naval officer to read before they went to bed. He gave him the prayer book, which I presume was an Anglican prayer book. The minister said, as he opened the prayer book and looked at it, he noticed the petitions all concluded with the words for Christ's sake. But he also noticed that there were two lines drawn through every one of these last words. For Christ's sake, two petitions, so that they were not read by that man. He asked him, why is it that you have crossed out these petitions, the words for Christ's sake. Well, he explained to the preacher that his idea of God was such that he did not need to be coaxed to forgive sinners, and that all that was necessary was for him to own up to his wrongdoing and God would forgive. Forgive him. The preacher went on and he read the prayers. And then afterwards he began to talk. And he said he talked for a good while about sin. He talked about human faults and human evil, and he talked about human willfulness. Then he went on to talk about the sanctity of God's law and how God is very concerned about the sanctity of his law and. And his will. Then he went on and talked about the atonement. It was evident it was having its effect because finally, near the end of the talk, the older man turned to the preacher and said, that's a better gospel than mine. With that, he said, we knelt down and gave thanks that God for Christ's sake had forgiven him.
47 · Johnson extracts the theological principle from the illustration: the phrase 'for Christ's sake' is not coaxing God but acknowledging that atonement is the exclusive ground of forgiveness—a better gospel than any humanistic alternative
You know those little words, for Christ's sake, stress the fact that it is the atonement that is the ground of all forgiveness. It is a better gospel than any kind of human gospel.
48 · Johnson delivers the sermon's final application in stark form: the answer to Christ's prayer was 'no'—it was not possible to save humanity without a penal substitute—making substitutionary atonement the non-negotiable ground of salvation
Oh, my Father, if it be possible. But it was not possible. That's the point. It was not possible. Salvation cannot come apart from a penal substitute who dies for us.
49 · Johnson issues an evangelistic appeal, calling unbelievers to acknowledge sin, guilt, and divine holiness, and to receive salvation as a free gift based on the atoning work Christ accepted in Gethsemane and accomplished on the cross
Oh, may God speak to your heart to that end. If you're here and you have never believed in the Lord Jesus, we call upon you by the grace of God. Acknowledge your sin, acknowledge your guilt, acknowledge the holiness of the Divine law and receive as a free gift the salvation that God offers to sinners. May God speak to your heart to that end.
50 · Johnson closes with a benediction prayer, giving thanks for Scripture's revelation of human sin and Christ's atoning sacrifice, and praying for the conversion of any unconverted present, that they might find rest in Christ
Let's stand for the benediction. Father, we are so grateful to thee for the words of Holy Scripture, for these difficult words as well as the simple words. And we give Thee thanks that Thou hast spoken to our hearts concerning our own desperate need, our human sin. How guilty we were. How great was the atoning sacrifice. Lord, if there are some here who have not yet come, O God, give no rest nor peace until they rest in Christ. If it should please thee, for Jesus sake, amen.