Page images

Son of God, come down from the cross. He saved others; himself he cannot save.” Was such conduct the product of human ingenuity? It would seem not. Had the Saviour been guilty of all they charged him with such treatment was essentially devilish. There is a certain sacredness in the closing hours of even the vilest. They are permitted to die in peace. But, if the worst they said of Christ were true, he was but a barmless enthusiast who had withal done much good. The spirit that profaned his closing hours was Satanic to the utmost extent. The chief agent in the wilderness temptation was again near, and this alone will account for the horrid profanation. If present at the crucifixion why should his presence in the garden have occasioned surprise? It could not have been this from which deliverance was craved. A much better explanation of the Satanic presence in Gethsemane is that it was an incident growing out of our Lord's experiences, and ought not to be magnified into undue significance. It was incidental, just as our temptations are incidental. We do not hold that any temptations are ordained of God. They arise out of personal weakness and our relations to a sinful world. Their presence at any time need not surprise us, nor need we find it necessary to implore the Father to remove them. We do need strength to resist, and that is freely promised us. But our Lord prayed for the removal of “this cup," and that fact discounts the theory that such cup was in any sense a temptation. The thing from which he craved deliverance must have been something besides the presence of Satan in the garden.

What then was “this cup” to which Christ alludes? Of two facts we are certain :

(1) It was a present, rather than a future, experience. * This appears from a careful examination of the original, ει δυνατόν έστι, παρελθέτω απ' εμού το ποτήριον τούτο. It will be observed that in addition to the article to the demonstrative pronoun ToŨTO is also used. We find on examination that all three of the evangelists follow the same usage. We also dis

* When the writer was a student in Drew Seminary Dr. James Strong mentioned this fact, and advised investigation. The results of that investigation are here given.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

cover that the preposition trapá—which means “by," “ near,"

along side of,” and when used with the accusative means near," " by the side of”—is used in combination with the verb in the corresponding passages of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which refer to our Lord's pleas for deliverance. Such & fact clearly shows that the phrase “ this cup” must have been something present in the garden from which Christ sought deliverance.

(2) But, once more, we know that he did not drink the cup. His cry was heard, and he was delivered from the dreaded experience. This appears from Heb. v, 7, “Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared.” The ambiguity of this passage disappears when we turn to the translation given by Moses Stuart in his commentary on Hebrews. He renders και εισο κουσθείς από της ευλαβέιας thus, “ And was heard in respect to that which he feared, or, was delivered from that which he feared.” Now, this passage can refer to but one person, the Lord Jesus Christ. And the experience it portrays must have been his agony in the garden. There is no other experience that corresponds with the intensity of emotion which this passage breathes. And the truth it contains completely voids the commonly accepted theory that the thing our Lord prayed to be delivered from was death on the cross.

But another answer may be given to the question considered. We must bear in mind that during the three years of our Saviour's ministry he had been subject to a constantly increasing nervous tension. As he neared the end mind and heart and body were under a remorseless dominion. The intense weight that rested upon him naturally produced extraordinary physical depression. In this condition he entered the garden. The moment he knelt he felt that his physical powers were yielding. The body had borne all it conld bear. It was then that a great fear seized him. If no relief came could he endure the strain. Might not he sink under the load that crushed him to the earth ? When this possibility flashed before him his whole nature revolted. “No, no," his soul cried, “not this; do not ask me to drink



this cup." He had “trodden the winepress alone,” and not a murmur had escaped his lips. But death in the garden, with longed-for Calvary in the near future, would indeed be a bitter cup. It was this he feared, and it was from this he so earnestly sought deliverance. Can this view be demonstrated ? The answer will be found in an exainination of the grounds that in the writer's estimation sustain this theory.

As we have already seen, the Saviour's physical nature was exhausted. So intense were his emotions that the blood was forced through the pores of his skin. It is not reasonable to suppose that his already overburdened heart could have endured the strain much longer. Had no relief come he must have died of heart rupture—the actual cause of his death a few hours later. But help did come. In Luke xxii, 43, we read, “ And there appeared an angel unto hiin from heaven, strengthening him.” Luke here puts the celestial visitants aid between the second and the third prayer, when our Lord's agony was greatest and his weakness most felt. This is of the utmost importance as showing that the strength imparted to the suffering Saviour was physical strength. And this is further shown by the original, for the verb évioXÚw means “to impart vigor,” “to make strong.” The conclusion is abundantly confirmed by Heb. v, 7, already quoted. It will be seen at a glance that these two passages, Luke xxii, 43, and Heb. v, 7, sustain the contention this article raises. Jesus did not fear either suffering or death. He did not shrink from the cup which his Father had given him ; but he did

2 crave deliverance from “this cup," and from it he was delivered. The view magnifies, rather than diminishes, his submission to the Father's will. Death in the garden would have robbed him of the one cherished boon of his earthly life. The only prize he had coveted is about to be snatched from his grasp. Yet, if this be his Father's will, the quivering heart sobs, “ Amen!” Was ever submission like this? Our mind fails in its attempt to fathom so stupendous an experience.

The writer knows of no interpretation so free from difficulty, from the view.point of the Arminian theology. The Calvinist will smile at it as puerile. He finds no difficulty in this experience of our Lord. In the Calvinistic view the Son shrank, not from soffering or death, but from the prospect of absolute abandonment. But the only thing that can separate from God is sin. Christ was not a sinner; hence he could not fear

. separation from the Father. In rejecting the Calvinist interpretation we bave found ourselves driven to seek some extrication from the difficulties that surround us. If the Son of God did not shrink from the prospect of absolute separation from the Father, what was it from which his soul desired escape? The writer has sought the best light possible, and offers the view last named as the solution of a most delicate and difficult question. It is not claimed that this solution is absolutely free from objection, but we do insist that it is the most reasonable solution yet offered. It forever does away with the necessity of thinking that Jesus, the Son of God, the Saviour of men, pleaded in awful earnestness of soul to be delivered from the very thing for which he entered the world. It clears the mental atmosphere, and is an aid to our faith to feel that Jesus never held back from any anguish, however exquisite it might be, but that he unswervingly went forward to the end. And it does not seem extravagant to assert that the view here urged is consistent and scriptural, and therefore commends itself as worthy of acceptance.

Roth Watt

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


It is hardly an exaggeration to say that no nation of antiquity has, in the last few years, received more attention than the Hittites. And it inay also be said that in regard to none has the generally accepted tradition been more completely revolutionized. Though the words “Hittite” and “Hittites” occur more than fifty times in the Old Testament, a writer says of it, in the time of Abraham, “The tribe was evidently as yet but small, not important enough to be noticed beside (the Canaanite and the Perizzite.?"* Many biblical passages indicate plainly, however, that they were neither few in number nor politically unimportant, at this time or shortly afterward The fact that Abraham bought a tomb from the sons of Heth for “four hundred shekels of silver, current money with the merchant,” shows plainly enough the occupation in which they were engaged. Another writer thinks there is no doubt the latter were natives of Cyprus, or at least that this was the chief seat of their power. It seems to incline to the opinion that they were Greeks, while the former name may designate a different people, and that the names occurring in the Bible may have arisen from confusing two peoples that were in fact distinct. There is no doubt that the powerful nation of the Cheta of the Egyptian monuments and the Chatti of the cuneiform inscriptions dwelt north of Palestine. It is evident from the cautions tone of Professor Kautzsch, the author of the article just cited, that he did not feel justified, by his study of the evidence, in holding any positive views on the subject. Yet the origin and ethnic relations of the Pelasgi have exercised scholars for at least half a century.

Hitzig regarded them as the ancestors of the modern Albanians. This view is supported with much warmth by Von Hahn. The most recent attempt to strengthen this hypothesis is made by Benloew in his La Grèce avant les Grecs. It may be said, however, that it does not seem to be consid

*See article under this caption in McClintock and Strong's Cyclopædia, vol. iv, p. 279.

+ See the articles “Hethiter" and “Chittim” in Riehm's Handwoerterbuch des did lischen Alterthums.


« PreviousContinue »