Luke 22:42, what was the cup?

[IceMobster]

The main point of his sermon the following Sunday on this text is: When you see a stop sign, it is a place where traffic is naturally clogged, so it is a good place to let off passengers from your car.

Isn't it that it he would favor one definition over the other instead of saying a nonsense such as that?

[Jac3510]

Sadly, it's more common than you might think. Consider the following example:

• “Rom. 8:29a refers to the believers as those whom God foreknew. In eternity God foreknew us according to His fore-knowledge (1 Pet. 1:2a). In the New Testament the root of the words ‘foreknowledge’ and ‘foreknow’ is ‘know’ [Greek: ginosko]. To this root a prefix is attached. The Greek prefix pro means before or beforehand. In New Testament Greek, words such as foreknow and foreknowledge imply more than what we would understand from the English translations. The Greek root for these words includes the meaning of appreciation, approval, and possession. If we approve something, we shall appreciate it. Then we shall want to take possession of it and own it. The foreknowledge of God spoken of in 1 Peter 1:2 implies that in eternity past God approved us and appreciated us. It also implies that in eternity past He took us over, possessed us, owned us. We may even say that as Joseph married Mary, God in His foreknowledge ‘married’ us in eternity past... All this is included in the connotation of the word foreknowledge. God's fore-knowledge also includes His foreordination. In his expanded translation of the NT, Kenneth S. Wuest uses the word ‘foreordination’ in [1 Pet.] 1:2, saying that the believers are ‘chosen-out ones, this choice having been determined by the foreordination of God the Father.’ God's foreknowledge, therefore, means not only that He knew us in eternity past; it also means that He ordained us. We all were ordained by God the Father in eternity past.”

Taken from here.

A similar error is often made with theological constructs. We take an idea developed in one place and then apply it elsewhere, and then we take the idea as developed in both of those places and apply still again elsewhere. It's a terrible practice, but preaches do it all the time. It is more often than not what lies behind eisogesis.

Another fun example is the idea that man is made in the image of God. So then we start looking at all the meanings of "image" and "likeness" and start applying those things to God. Some go so far as to say that God therefore has a body! More conservative Christians will still make this error by claiming that God would have emotions and would be a being. Things like that. As a last example, there is an entire Bible built on using this fallacy called the Amplified Bible. And I know preachers who use it regularly both in sermon preparation and in sermon delivery!

Point is, we need to let the context determine the meaning of any given word and tell us the extent of any given theological proposition. That's much harder to do than you might think.

[Christian2]

Briefly, it's when you take all possible meanings of a word or phrase (the entire semantic domain) and state or imply that the meaning in any individual occurrence includes all of those meanings. To use a humorous example, imagine how a seminary-educated evangelical preacher might exegete and interpret a stop sign. He would first look up "STOP" in his lexicons of English and discover that it can mean: 1) something that prevents motion, such as a plug for a drain, or a block of wood that prevents a door from closing; 2) a location where a train or bus lets off passengers. The main point of his sermon the following Sunday on this text is: When you see a stop sign, it is a place where traffic is naturally clogged, so it is a good place to let off passengers from your car.

So that's illegitimate totality transfer. And it doesn't just apply to individual words. It applies to concepts and theological constructs, too. I worry the Expositor's Commentary is falling into that error.

Thanks. As I said, you folks have done a better job of explaining this subject.

I have to admit that I am a bit sensitive to the thought that Jesus was afraid to die because of what a Muslim said to me.

"Your God, Jesus, did not want to die. He cried like a baby because he was afraid to die" and I've never forgotten that comment.

[Jac3510]

Maybe it's a bit pedantic, but I tend to think we should distinguish between the fear of death and the fear of how we die. I'm not at all afraid of death. I would be terrified at knowing that I was going to be tortured to death. And if anyone denies that they fear being so tortured, they are either lying or else insane (literally), and are to the degree they are insane less fully experiencing their own humanity.

And as an aside, you might also retort that while Christ, as a man, feared the pains of death, and while He fully submitted to death regardless of those fears; Christ never demanded such pains be inflicted upon other people, whereas Allah through Mohammed is forever commanding gruesome tortures. Jesus commands us to love and forgive, for He took death upon Himself and defeated it. Mohammed commands us to maim and kill and destroy, to impose death on others. We serve a Savior of life who defeated death. They serve a death-dealing monster. Ours is a faith of life. Theirs is a cult of death.

I, then, will take my crying Savior any day over the one who stands with his boot upon the necks of others, so cowardly and afraid of disagreement that he freely commits murder. My Savior, my God, is truly human--as they say of Mohammed, we can actually say of Christ: He is the perfect man. Their prophet is sniveling coward, a mere beast, fit himself only to be caged. Their prophet is far less than a man. So, yes, again, I'll take Jesus over their false prophet without any hesitation and every time.

[Christian2]

Maybe it's a bit pedantic, but I tend to think we should distinguish between the fear of death and the fear of how we die. I'm not at all afraid of death. I would be terrified at knowing that I was going to be tortured to death. And if anyone denies that they fear being so tortured, they are either lying or else insane (literally), and are to the degree they are insane less fully experiencing their own humanity.

And as an aside, you might also retort that while Christ, as a man, feared the pains of death, and while He fully submitted to death regardless of those fears; Christ never demanded such pains be inflicted upon other people, whereas Allah through Mohammed is forever commanding gruesome tortures. Jesus commands us to love and forgive, for He took death upon Himself and defeated it. Mohammed commands us to maim and kill and destroy, to impose death on others. We serve a Savior of life who defeated death. They serve a death-dealing monster. Ours is a faith of life. Theirs is a cult of death.

I, then, will take my crying Savior any day over the one who stands with his boot upon the necks of others, so cowardly and afraid of disagreement that he freely commits murder. My Savior, my God, is truly human--as they say of Mohammed, we can actually say of Christ: He is the perfect man. Their prophet is sniveling coward, a mere beast, fit himself only to be caged. Their prophet is far less than a man. So, yes, again, I'll take Jesus over their false prophet without any hesitation and every time.

You have helped me a great deal. I'm glad I started this topic.

As for the Muslims, I have spent years trying to reach them. I am at the place where I think I've done as much as I can.