We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.
What is the significance of Matthew 26:39?
Jesus threw himself on the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not what I want but what you want.”
Scripture indicates that much about the life and death of Jesus Christ was foreordained and thus foreknown long before it came to pass. Given that this was the central defining event in world history, this should not surprise us. What is somewhat surprising is that in this passage Jesus very clearly pleads with the Father to change his plan at the last minute—“if it is possible.” Jesus’ request obviously could not be granted, but what is significant is the fact that Jesus made the request in the first place. For Jesus knew and had been teaching his disciples for some time that the divine plan was for him to be crucified (Matt. 12:40; 16:21; John 2:19). Yet here he is asking God the Father to change his plan “if it is possible.”
Jesus’ request makes little sense if we assume that Jesus believed that the future was exhaustively settled in God’s mind and/or that God’s plans were unalterable. His prayer reveals that even with regard to the central defining event in world history, there was, in the mind of Jesus, an outside chance that his Father might yet change his mind.
Category: Q&A
Tags: Open Theism, Q&A
Topics: Open Theism
Verse: Matthew 26
Related Reading
What is the significance of Isaiah 5:3–7?
The Lord describes Israel as his vineyard. Referring to himself, he says that the owner of the vineyard loved his vineyard and did all he could to care for it. “[H]e expected it to yield grapes, but it yielded wild grapes” (vs. 2). Then the Lord asks, “What more was there to do for my…
Do you believe God is pure actuality?
The basis of the classical view of God as pure actuality (actus purus) is the Aristotelian notion that potentiality is always potential for change and that something changes only because is lacks something else. So, a perfect being who lacks nothing must be devoid of potentiality, which means it must be pure actuality. I think…
Why do you argue that discipleship and politics are rooted in opposite attitudes?
Question. At a recent conference I heard you argue against the idea that there could ever be a distinctly “Christian” political position by contending that political disputes are premised on a claim to superiority while discipleship is fundamentally rooted in humility. I don’t think I get what you mean. Can you explain this? Answer: In…
The Hexagon of Opposition
Throughout the western philosophical and theological tradition, scholars have assumed that the future can be adequately described in terms of what will and will not happen. In this essay I, Alan Rhoda and Tom Belt argue that this assumption is mistaken, for the logical contradictory of will is not will not but might not. Conversely,…
Does the Open View Undermine God’s Sovereignty?
A common objection to the concept of a risk-taking God is that it seems to undermine God’s sovereignty. If any particular individual can opt out of God’s plan, then every individual could conceivably opt out of God’s plan, and it seems that God’s entire plan for world history could ultimately fail. Some have argued that…
Podcast: Do Open Theists Believe that God EVER Intercedes Directly in the World?
Greg considers God’s intervention in light of human prayer, and discusses the covenant of non-coercion. http://traffic.libsyn.com/askgregboyd/Episode_0122.mp3 [3] Swain, 40. Photo via Ted Van Peltflickr.com