CROYDON, JUNE 20TH, 1939
CROYDON, JUNE 20TH, 1939
Mr. Arthur A. Elliott.
My Dear Brother, — Pardon delay in acknowledging your letter. It is very interesting, but my hands have been very full and the matter involved required close attention; only today have I been able to look at the New York Readings on the ‘Sufferings of Christ’.
Having looked through the second reading I see nothing in it to justify the claim that it teaches that the “cup” in Luke 22: 42 is less than the cup in the corresponding passages in Matthew and Mark — the same cup is referred to in each and involves all the sufferings of the cross — those needed for atonement. I never had any other or different thought and never intended to convey any other.
It was the cup of God’s will involving His judgment of human guilt and no other cup could occasion such profound concern to our Saviour as is described in Luke. The fact that the forsaking, recorded by Matthew and Mark, does not appear in Luke, by no means implies that it was not in the cup as the Lord viewed it.
What was said in the readings as to the Lord’s sufferings being less severe in Luke’s record and John’s is based, of course, on the forsaking being omitted in these gospels; this is only to show how teaching may be limited for certain reasons — [p. 153] not at all to deny or ignore what is elsewhere added. As to the cup in Luke, the facts given do not show that the full atoning sufferings of Christ were not in it. The variation from Matthew and Mark is, I believe, to bring out more distinctly the human side. Physical suffering is noted and succour by an angel, also that He was withdrawn from the disciples a stone’s throw, instead of “going forward a little” — the former more isolated dependence. Sonship is in more evidence in Mark — Abba, Father — and also in Matthew somewhat. But in each account the Lord’s profound exercises are occasioned by the full sufferings of His atoning work being in prospect, not only what man would cause.
As to “withdrawn” in Luke, the fact of it is the point — not the means by which it came about. “Going forward” suggests power — leadership too perhaps — in meeting Satan, for the conflict here is in relation to the enemy.
To say that ‘the angel could not strengthen the Lord in view of atoning sufferings’ has no force — there were no atoning sufferings on the Mount of Olives. The angel strengthens the Lord in His then present conflict. That ‘”the drops of blood” were to arouse our sympathy in anticipation of the sufferings at the hand of man, and that we could not have sympathy with His anticipation of atoning sufferings’ is quite an erroneous statement, I am certain. He was in Gethsemane in unclouded communion with His Father and had His infinite sympathy in His exercises there.
My wife unites in love in Christ to Mrs. Elliott and you all.
Affectionately in Him,
James Taylor.