“My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.” (Matthew 26:39)
In his late twenties, Calvinist pastor David Platt authored a book titled “Radical,” which became a New York Times bestseller and greatly affected American evangelicalism. By his thirties, Platt had become the president of the IMB. In “Radical,” Platt introduces the Divine Abuse gospel, teaching that the “cup” of abuse Jesus had to suffer was, in fact, from God the Father:
Listen to his words: “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me.” The “cup” is not a reference to a wooden cross; it is a reference to divine judgment. It is the cup of God’s wrath. This is what Jesus is recoiling from in the garden. All God’s holy wrath and hatred toward sin and sinners, stored up since the beginning of the world, is about to be poured out on him, and he is sweating blood at the thought of it. What happened at the Cross was not primarily about nails being thrust into Jesus’ hands and feet but about the wrath due to your sin and my sin being thrust upon his soul. In that holy moment, all the righteous wrath and justice of God due us came down rushing like a torrent on Christ himself. At the Cross, Christ drank the full cup of the wrath of God, and when he had downed the last drop, he turned the cup over and cried out, “It is finished.” This is the gospel.
David Platt
According to Platt, the Son sweated blood because he was terrified of his own Father.
Similarly, Dan Wallace, a professor at DTS, conveyed to his Facebook followers that what happened on the cross “was God punishing God.” Likewise, Paul Washer understands the cup as representing Jesus being:
Crushed under the wrath of His own father…all the wrath of all mighty God was going to be hurled upon Him and crush Him to pieces…. His own father crushed Him.
To illustrate how twisted and illogical this doctrine is, imagine you have several children. While one is wonderfully obedient, the others are troublemakers. Instead of addressing the rebellious ones, you decide to direct your “holy wrath” toward your innocent son. You tie him to a tree, flog him, and ultimately kill him to spare the others. Later, in front of a jury, you claim you killed your son out of love for your other children.
What would the jury consider this, an act of justice, grace, and love, or would they see it as the epitome of injustice and sentence you to a lifetime in a close psychiatric institution? In contrast to Platt’s declaration, the gospel of Divine Abuse cannot embody the true gospel.
Wrath
Let us turn our Bibles to Matthew 26:39 (or Luke 22:42; Mark 14:26), where Jesus is praying:
My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me.
Matthew 26:39
According to Divine Abuse theology, “this cup” represents the Father’s divine wrath—a cosmic violent abuse that the Father was about to inflict on the Son. The notion that a father who “crushes to pieces” his innocent son is deemed a loving father is perplexing. Setting aside personal intuition and emotions, it’s essential to approach this as a straightforward biblical argument and comprehend the true meaning of God’s wrath and the “cup,” a foundation in the doctrine of Divine Abuse.
Wrath in the Hebrew Scriptures
In the Old Testament, passages that depict God’s wrath often refer to God’s anger towards Israel for worshipping other gods. This wrath is not depicted as direct punishments like hail, lightning, or lava from God Himself. Instead, it is portrayed as God turning His face away, becoming passive, and not intervening when hostile pagans attack Israel. This indirect action, or lack thereof, allowing calamities to occur, represents God’s wrath in these scriptures.
Generally, in the Old Testament, God’s wrath is depicted as Him permitting heathen nations to subdue Israel rather than defending against them. This aligns with God’s covenant in the Law, which includes blessings and curses (e.g., Deuteronomy 28). The afflictions Israel faced often involved being subjected to pagan rulers, forcing Israel to worship foreign gods, and adopting evil practices such as child sacrifices. Thus, the wrath represents not a direct assault by God on Israel but rather a punitive measure executed through malevolent pagans, typically Babylonians, whom God allowed to defeat, subjugate, and displace Israel due to their idolatrous practices. It was as though God was saying, “You reject me? Very well, Israel. Let’s see how these other gods will treat, protect, and nurture you.”
This wrath was not the suffering and torture inflicted by God but rather the wrath of evil men. In the Hebrew Scriptures, wrath was poured out by pagans as a result of Israel’s rejection of God. In the New Testament, likewise, the wrath of the Romans, who conquered and exiled Israel, represents a divine response to Israel’s rejection of Jesus as the Messiah (Matthew 23:37-24:2).
Wrath in the New Testament
In this sense, divine wrath is not God actively torturing (sinners nor Christ) but a “withdrawal” of God’s protective presence. Jesus, as Israel’s ultimate representative and high priest, most vividly absorbed the “cup” of Roman wrath; he endured the crucifixion. Thus, it can be said that Jesus took upon himself the wrath on our behalf. As Israel’s representative, Jesus stood in the breach and interceded for his people, bearing the punishment they deserved.
Tim Mackie encapsulates this concept succinctly and poignantly:
The cup of God’s wrath represents domination by foreign armies, and Jesus sees himself as drinking this cup when he stands in Israel’s place before Rome.
Tim Mackie
Just as in the Old Testament, wrath descended upon Jesus was not inflicted by God but by the spears and whips of the pagan Romans who crucified and ultimately killed Christ (and, years later, the nation of Israel), as the scriptures indicate. God did not protect Jesus but allowed these evils to unfold.
The New Testament authors continuously emphasize that the suffering, torture, and death of Christ were the actions of wicked men, not divine punishment. Only days before His crucifixion, Jesus shared a parable about a man who planted a vineyard, left it in the care of tenants, and went abroad (Matthew 21:33–41). At harvest, he sent servants to collect his fruit, but the tenants beat, killed, and stoned them. The landowner then sent his son, thinking they would respect him, but the tenants killed him too. Jesus then posed a question: “When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” (verse 40). He answered: “He will put those wretches to a miserable death and lease the vineyard to other tenants who will deliver the fruits in their seasons” (verse 41).
In this parable, Jesus unmistakably foretells His own demise. Yet, who bears the responsibility for Jesus’ brutal and violent end? Was it the Vineyard’s owner who imposed Christ’s afflictions? Or did the torment and demise occur through the actions of malevolent individuals? Clearly, it was not the Father who killed the Son, but rather the wicked tenants—symbolizing the wicked men who would later torture and brutalize Jesus to death, not as a divine act but through human wickedness.
When Jesus was crucified, one might expect him to beg the Father to cease his suffering with prayers such as: “Father, I cannot bear your punishment any longer. Please, stop this pain!” However, he instead pleaded with the Father to forgive those who were torturing and killing him (Luke 23:34), indicating that Jesus attributed his suffering and death not to God but to mankind.
The Gospel authors clearly attribute every aspect of Jesus’s pain, suffering, and torture exclusively to human actions:
“Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me?”
Matthew 26:55
Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists. Others slapped him.
Matthew 26:67
He was humiliated by governor’s soldiers.
Matthew 27:28-29
They spit on him and took the staff and struck him on the head.
Matthew 27:30
There they offered Jesus wine to drink, mixed with gall.
Matthew 27:34
Then the chief priests and the elders of the people assembled.… and they schemed to arrest Jesus secretly and kill him.
Matthew 26:2-4
Those who passed by hurled insults at him.
Matthew 27:39
In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him.
Matthew 27:41
In the same way the rebels who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him.
Matthew 27:44
He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a staff, and offered it to Jesus to drink.
Matthew 27:48
Herod and his soldiers ridiculed and mocked him.
Luke 23:11
The rulers even sneered at him.
Luke 23:35
Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged.
John 19:1
The soldiers… they slapped him in the face.
John 19:2-3
One of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear.
John 19:34
This is also what Jesus himself proclaimed—that he would be delivered “into the hands of the Gentiles to be mocked, flogged, and crucified” (Matthew 20:19).
It’s almost as if the New Testament authors, anticipating that someone might one day blame God for Jesus’ suffering, went out of their way to emphasize that it wasn’t God but the people who were responsible for Christ’s suffering and torture.
For a Jew living in the second temple period, wrath symbolized the swords, spears, and staffs of the wicked pagans besieging Israel. They would abuse, torture, mutilate their bodies, and exile the rest. God’s wrath was understood to be speaking of punishment coming from the hands of pagans, not from God, who “hid his face” (Deuteronomy 32:20). This is also what happened to Jesus, as he was tortured and put to death by the hands of people.
The Cup
Cups in the Hebrew Scriptures
In the Old Testament, the term “cup” could symbolize punishment, wrath, and suffering, as exemplified in Psalm 75 and Jeremiah 25. Conversely, the cup can also represent salvation. Like a vessel, the cup serves as a metaphor for our lives, capable of holding a variety of contents. Our “cup” may overflow with blessings and redemption (Psalm 23:5; 116:13), or it may brim with wrath and terror (Isaiah 51:17; Ezekiel 23:33).
Cups in the New Testament
The concept propagated by advocates of Divine Abuse suggests that “the cup” symbolizes God’s wrath, implying that God Himself inflicted brutality, punishment, and death upon Jesus. This contemporary and flawed interpretation of the scriptures ought to be dismissed. According to Ulrich Luz, a highly respected Swiss theologian and professor emeritus at the University of Bern:
Jesus asks that “this cup” might pass by. What does that mean? Because of the prophetic use of the metaphor “cup,” many interpreters think of God’s wrath, which Jesus must bear vicariously, or even of the messianic pangs. However, the readers of the Gospel of Matthew, influenced by the redactional “sons of Zebedee” in verse 37, will understand the term primarily on the basis of 20:20–23, where Jesus likewise confronted the “sons of Zebedee” by speaking of his death as the cup that he must drink—thus too following a Jewish usage. Thus I regard the interpretation of “cup” as God’s wrath as a soteriological overinterpretation that probably never would have arisen without the influence of the interpretation of our text in the Reformation.
Ulrich Luz
It would not be prudent to equate a donkey mentioned in the New Testament (for instance, Matthew 21:7) with one found in the Old Testament (such as Numbers 22:28) solely based on the word being the same, especially if this comparison is made while disregarding other mentions of donkeys in the New Testament, as Bible hermeneutics requires prioritizing the immediate context of any term or verse in question.
In other words, Paul Washer and David Platt should not have interpreted Jesus’ “cup” based on cherry-picked references from the Old Testament but rather should have focused on the “cups” within the New Testament, which provide the most immediate context (Matthew 20:22; 26:27-28; 26:39). As Ulrich Luz pointed out, the meaning of the “cup” in Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane (Matthew 26:39) is consistent with the “cup” Jesus himself referred to earlier in Matthew 20:22.
To phrase it differently, the “cup” mentioned in Matthew 26 is identical to the one in chapter 20. Both instances refer to the suffering brought about by human deeds. It is the same wrath that the sons of Zebedee would eventually experience as well:
Now Jesus was going up to Jerusalem. On the way, he took the Twelve aside and said to them, “We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!” Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him. “What is it you want?” he asked. She said, “Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom.” “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said to them. “Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?” “We can,” they answered. Jesus said to them, “You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant.”
Matthew 20:17-23
In these passages, James and John, the sons of Zebedee and disciples of Jesus, request to share in the cup Jesus is to drink. Jesus describes this cup as one of mockery, flogging, and crucifixion. Yet, if the cup symbolizes God’s wrath, torture, and punishment, two issues arise. Firstly, why are the “chief priests” and “gentiles” identified as Jesus’ tormentors but not God?
Secondly, why would Jesus assure James and John they too would drink from his cup (“You will indeed drink from my cup”) if—as Paul Washer suggests—Jesus already drank the cup of God’s wrath on behalf of humanity?
On the cross God himself he took our place, bore our sin and suffered the wrath of God that we deserve. He extinguished it, He put it away.
Paul Washer
The Son of God was forsaken by His Father, then crushed under His own Father’s punishment.… Christ took the wrath of God, that great cup, and drank it down. He turned it over and not one drop came out. He drank the wrath of God and satisfied justice and appeased wrath.
Paul Washer
Suppose, as Calvinists advocate, this cup represents wrath and severe, abusive punishment from God, which Jesus is to consume on behalf of humanity; it would be illogical for Jesus to consent to the disciples’ plea to partake in it. If that were the case, why would God “pour out His wrath” upon them as well? As apostles of Christ, why would they be subjected to God’s punishment? Didn’t Jesus satisfy the wrath of God? This clearly presents a severe logical contradiction.
The Cup of the New Covenant
In the Gospels, the third cup is the one from which Christ drank during the Last Supper. Jesus described this cup, integral to the traditional Jewish Passover feast, as symbolizing the entry into the New Covenant:
He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.”
Luke 22:20
Partaking of the cup symbolizes entry into the New Covenant, an act Jesus extended to his disciples, past and present. The cup cannot represent God’s wrath upon Jesus, as he himself invited his disciples—and us—to drink from it. Rather, it is fitting that the cup signifies the offer of salvation to all. In the act of drinking red wine, one symbolically drinks blood, which stands for life. Hence, Jesus commanded, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant…” (Matthew 26:27-28), signifying that entering the New Covenant involves embracing the life (blood) of Christ.
The cup Jesus’ disciples drank from
Remember what I told you: “A servant is not greater than his master.” If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also.
John 15:20
Indeed, James, John’s brother, who had also sought to drink from Jesus’ cup, met his end. Yet, his death was not a result of divine wrath, but rather, he became a martyr, enduring a violent demise by his persecutors, as recorded in Acts 12:2.
The cup of Gethsemane
My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.
Matthew 26:39
Three verses later, Jesus was praying again:
My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.
Matthew 26:42
Jesus prayed the same prayer three times. Upon returning to his disciples, he discovered they had fallen asleep. Pressing on them, he said: “Are you still sleeping and resting? Look, the hour has come, and the Son of Man is delivered into the hands of sinners.” (Matthew 26:45).
We already understood that Jesus was apprehensive about “the cup,” and the time for it had arrived. Jesus then clarified what ‘this cup’ signified: “The Son of Man is handed over to sinners.” This did not imply that Jesus was surrendered to an angry God for torture and execution. Instead, he was handed over to sinners (and God is no sinner). Jesus’s request for the Father to remove the cup could be interpreted as: “God, if there is another way, please step in and prevent them from unleashing their fury on me.” However, there was no alternative; Jesus had to die, and he consented to endure it.
The only one who could have rescued Jesus from his tormentors was his Father in heaven. But the Father remained passive—He hid His face, stayed silent, and did not intervene as evil men violently abused His Son. It was a corrupt alliance between Jews and Gentiles: “Indeed, Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed” (Acts 4:27). Mankind rejected, tortured, and killed Jesus—not God.
Continuing only two verses later, we find: “While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, arrived. Accompanied by a large crowd wielding swords and clubs, sent by the chief priests and elders of the people.” (Matthew 26:47). Here, it becomes crystal clear that the ‘cup’ Jesus feared and was so anxious about was not suffering at the hands of the Father, as suggested by David Platt, but the impending betrayal and violence from people “armed with swords and clubs” intent on capturing, torturing, and killing Christ.
This is why context is so critical; without it, one might misinterpret the cup as depicting a Father who sadistically tortures and kills His own Son to satisfy His cosmic anger.
Jesus’s Prayers
You may have observed that in Matthew, the period of Jesus’ suffering begins and ends with prayer—first in Gethsemane (chapter 26) and then on the cross (chapter 27). These prayers serve as bookends to the scene. Within this frame, we encounter the motif of “the cup” being poured upon Jesus. Interestingly, it appears as though God has receded from the scene entirely, as if leaving Jesus to endure his agony alone.
Additionally, moments before Jesus “gave up his spirit,” Matthew recorded something peculiar. In verse 45, we read: “Darkness came over all the land.” Darkness often serves as a powerful metaphor for the absence of goodness or divinity. Darkness represents injustice, evil, corruption, grief, death, etc.
Conversely, we know that “God is light; in him, there is no darkness at all.” (1 John 1:5) and that Jesus is “the light of the world” (John 1:4; 8:12). Just like darkness, light is of great significance as a metaphor. The Bible uses light to speak figuratively about goodness, truth, and life.
Since God is considered the ultimate source of light and life, the mentioned darkness could imply His absence from the scenario, further highlighting God’s passivity while humanity actively inflicted suffering.
Thankfully, light represents not only truth and life but also other godly attributes such as forgiveness, grace, and compassion. Our God is known for “turning darkness into light” (Psalm 18:28). He did so by resurrecting the one we killed. We brought darkness by crucifying the source of life, “but God raised Him from the dead, freeing Him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on Him” (Acts 2:24).
Conclusion
When I was a small child, my father gave me a disassembled wooden dinosaur as a gift. As I tried to build it, something went wrong. Frustration took over, and in a moment of anger, I threw the dinosaur on the floor, shattering it into pieces. What started as frustration quickly turned into grief, pain, and remorse. Not only had I failed to build the dinosaur, but now it was broken as well—all because of my immaturity and impatience.
When my dad came home that evening, I expected wrath. He had every right to be upset since I had broken his gift. But instead, he chose compassion. Without anger, he set aside his evening plans and sat down with me to glue the broken pieces back together. What I had destroyed, my dad “resurrected,” restoring it at his own expense—his time and energy.
For me, this experience is a powerful analogy of the gospel. Just as I broke my father’s gift, humanity brought destruction through sin, shattering God’s gift to us. And just as my dad took the time to mend what I had shattered, God, in His grace, resurrected what we’ve broken, bringing Life and hope where there was once only ruin. He will also do the same with the entire creation (Revelation 21:5).
This article is a copy-paste from my book, ‘The “Gospel” of Divine Abuse,’ available on this Amazon page.
A free sample is available here.
