Rebuttal of Michael Taylor's article, "Which "Cup" Did James and John Drink?"

Rebuttal of Michael Taylor's article, "Which "Cup" Did James and John Drink?"

Introduction

When Jesus told James and John that they would drink the cup that he would drink and undergo the baptism that he would undergo (Mark 10:38-39), what did he mean?  Most commentators take a straightforward approach:  Jesus was saying that they would suffer and die in a way comparable to their master, since the “cup” and the “baptism” to which Jesus was referring was his own death at the hands of his persecutors (Mark 14:32-42; Matthew 26:36-46; Luke 22: 40-46; John 18:11).  Support for this interpretation is found in subsequent apostolic history, including the only scriptural account of the martyrdom of an apostle, namely, James the brother of John (cf, Acts 12:2).  

So far, so good.

A significant minority of commentators, 

Why are they significant to Michael Taylor, I wonder?  I'm forced to conclude it is simply because they agree with his opinion and disagree with Catholic Doctrine.

however, believe that Jesus has a different “cup” in view, and by extension, a different “baptism” (See appendix A below).  The rest of this article will give several arguments in favor of the view that a different cup/baptism is in mind.  Before we do, let’s take a closer look at the text itself to see what the scriptures are saying.  

That's why I'm here.  To rebut those arguments.

Here is Mark's version (Mark 10:35-45):
And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came up to him and said to him, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.” 36 And he said to them, “What do you want me to do for you?” 37 And they said to him, “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.” 38 Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” 39 And they said to him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized, 40 but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant,but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.” 41 And when the ten heard it, they began to be indignant at James and John. 42 And Jesus called them to him and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 43 But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Here is Matthew's version (Matthew 20:20-28):

Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came up to him with her sons, and kneeling before him she asked him for something. 21 And he said to her, “What do you want?” She said to him, “Say that these two sons of mine are to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.” 22 Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?” They said to him, “We are able.” 23 He said to them, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.” 24 And when the ten heard it, they were indignant at the two brothers. 25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, 28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
With that in mind, let’s take a look at the case for why a “different” cup/baptism may be in view.

Ok.

1.   Jesus would have been wrong!
When Jesus asks James and John, "Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?" (Mark 10:38), his rhetorical question expects “no” as an answer.  

This is simply your assumption.  As I see it, Jesus asked a question in order to obtain a confession of faith.

If this isn't obvious from the very nature of the question, then it should be from the immediate context.  For he has just told the brothers (their mother, in Matthew's version),"You do not know what you are asking" (Mark 10:38; Matthew 20:22).

He explained that very clearly.  He says that they don't understand where His authority on the matter of seating in heaven extends:
Matt 20:23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: <b>but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.</b>

In other words, they understand that the cup and baptism entail sacrifice.  But do not understand that sitting at His right and left is for the Father to decide.

Amazingly, James and John answer, “We are able” (Mark 10:38).  But are they truly able?  If they are, then we are forced to the conclusion that Jesus' initial assessment of the brothers' ability to undergo the same cup/baptism was simply wrong.  

No, no.  We are forced to conclude that your assessment of what was going on is wrong.

But how likely is it that Jesus would have failed to properly discern their readiness, willingness and/or ability to face what Jesus himself was to face?  

Highly unlikely.  However, Jesus was only pressing for a confession of faith as He does frequently.  See these examples:

Mark 10:18
And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

Obviously, here, Jesus wants the young man to say, "because I believe that you are God.  That is why I call you good."  But the young man doesn't get it.

Here, however, Martha does get it:

John 11:26-27
King James Version (KJV)
26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

27 She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.

Therefore, when Jesus told them, “The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized" (Mark 10:39), he may very well have a different cup/baptism in mind. If so, then the initial expectation behind his rhetorical question would still be well-founded, and the problem of Jesus making a bad discernment would not arise.

The context leads most people to a very different conclusion.  You said so yourself in the opening paragraph.  The so-called "significant minority" is only significant to those who discard the Traditions of Jesus Christ.

2.   Jesus would have been hypocritical!
If Jesus has the same cup/baptism in mind throughout Mark 10:38-39, then he would have been guilty of gross hypocrisy.  After all, Jesus himself prays three times for the cup to be removed (cf, Mark 14: 39-41).  But if the same cup/baptism is in view throughout, then it seems that Jesus would have been willing to allow James and John to drink of the cup that he prays to have removed!   One would think that, at a minimum, Jesus would have prayed that they be spared the same cup.  But one finds no such prayer recorded in scripture.   Alternatively, if Jesus had a different cup/baptism in view, then no such problem arises in the first place.

Non sequitur.  If Jesus had been spared the cup, then it follows that everyone would have been spared the cup since we are His body.

3.  A cup of wrath for James and John?
The most probable scriptural background for the “cup” that Jesus mentions is the “cup of wrath” mentioned primarily in the prophets 

That only makes sense for those who read Scripture on the basis of Scripture alone.  And we don't.  Catholics understand that Scripture was not written in a vacuum.  The New Testament, in fact, is written by the Church, based upon the Sacred Traditions  which Jesus commanded the Church to Teach.

 (Psalm 11:6; 75:7, 8: Isaiah 51:17, 22; Jeremiah 25:15-16, 27-29; 49:12; 51:57; Lamentations 4:21; Ezekiel 23:31-34; Habakkuk 2:16; Zechariah 12:2; see also Job 21:20 Psalm 60:3; Isaiah 63:6; Obadiah 1:16).  

Having said that, you also, in typical Protestant style, simply dumped a bunch of verses in front of us with the assumption that you had understood them correctly.  Lets see if that is true.

Psalm 11:6
King James Version (KJV)
6 Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup.

Jesus is not wicked, so this doesn't apply.

Lets look at the word, "cup" and how it is used here.  It is prefaced by the word, "their".  "Their" is a clear reference to the wicked.

But what about "cup"?  In Scripture, we see this statement:
Matthew 7:2
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

That makes sense to me.  They were judged wicked and worthy of punishment.  Thus, their cup, their judgment, their fate, was fire and brimstone.

Psalm 75:7
King James Version (KJV)
7 But God is the judge: he putteth down one, and setteth up another.

Whaddaya know, this confirms that, in these verses at least, cup does not refer only to cup of wrath, but to God's judgment, good or bad.  Their fate as decided by God.

Psalm 75:8
8 For in the hand of the Lord there is a cup, and the wine is red; it is full of mixture; and he poureth out of the same: but the dregs thereof, all the wicked of the earth shall wring them out, and drink them.

Note this.  Here, the cup of God's judgment contains both good and evil.  The wine is good and the mixture is good.  But the dregs, the residue, is bitter and reserved for the wicked.

So, the "cup" refers to God's judgment, good or bad.  The fate of the good is to drink of the wine.  The fate of the wicked is to soak up the dregs.

If you read the rest of the verses, you will find that they all refer to the same thing.  God's judgment.  Most of them are specifically speaking about God's judgment that evil doers will be punished.  Nonetheless, we can see that the word "cup" does not necessarily refer to God's wrath.  But to the fate of the individual:

Psalm 16:5
The Lord is the portion of mine inheritance and of my cup: thou maintainest my lot.

Here, lot and cup mean the same thing.  Fate.  We all, in fact, hope for salvation.  And salvation is in our Lord.

1 Corinthians 2:9
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

 I hope I have proven then, that cup as "fate" or "judgment" is the most probable understanding of that which Jesus making reference when He was speaking to the Apostles.

Psalm 23:5
Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.

Psalm 73:10
Therefore his people return hither: and waters of a full cup are wrung out to them.

Psalm 116:13
I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the Lord.

Jeremiah 16:7
Neither shall men tear themselves for them in mourning, to comfort them for the dead; neither shall men give them the cup of consolation to drink for their father or for their mother.

So, if cup does not refer to wrath but to fate, what is the cup of which the Apostles will drink?

The cup of self sacrifice for the sake of the Church:
Acts 5:41
And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name.

In fact, there really is no other plausible scriptural background for the "cup," and anyone who says otherwise is forced to consult extra-biblical sources to find a suitable cup, such as the "cup of death" mentioned in some of the Targums (e.g., Targum Neofiti of Deuteronomy 32:1).  That said, of the 17 verses with metaphorical uses of the word "cup" in the Old Testament, the overwhelming majority (14 verses by my count) are negative uses which refer to God's wrath or judgment upon Israel or the nations.  And in no case does the "cup" ever refer to the persecution of an individual or to the death of a martyr. 

But if the "cup" is the OT cup of wrath (what other cup can it be?), how likely is it that Jesus would have expected the sons of Zebedee to undergo divine wrath and judgment?  If he did, then at best they had a “taste” of the cup and it would be most unlikely that they drank it to the "dregs" (cf, Isaiah 51:17) as Jesus did.  Therefore, if the “cup” Jesus drank was the cup of wrath, then it is unlikely that the same cup is in view for James and John.

As I hope I have proven, that is merely presupposition and faulty reasoning.  The cup to which Jesus refers is the common fate of all Christians, to take up our cross and suffer with Christ:
Romans 8:17
And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Galatians 2:20
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

4.  The Eucharistic cup as the most immediate fulfillment.
When Jesus tells James and John they will drink his “cup,” the very next time a “cup” is mentioned is at the Eucharist (Mark 14:23; Matthew 26:27), and there we are explicitly told that "they all drank of it," thereby giving an immediate fulfillment to his prediction in Mark 10:39.  

Further, when we compare the account of James' and John's request to the wording we find at the Eucharist, we find remarkable parallels besides the word "cup."  For example, Jesus ends his discourse in Mark 10:45 with these words:  "For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”  Compare this to the  language used at the Eucharist in Mark 14:24: And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many."  In light of the strong parallels between Jesus' discourse with James and John and the Institution of the Eucharist, it seems quite likely that these passages were intended to be mutually interpreting. 

That leads to the very Catholic conclusion that all Christians are called to give their life "as a ransom" for many:
1 Peter 2:21
For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

John 15:13
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

5.  What kind of baptism?

Most commentators believe that the “baptism” to which Jesus refers was an immersion in tribulation leading to his death.   As reasonable as this suggestion sounds, there is no clear analogue for this understanding of baptism in scripture.  The only OT passage that would come close to this understanding of baptism is the Septuagint (LXX) version of Isaiah 21:4: "My heart wanders, and transgression overwhelms (baptizes) me; my soul is occupied with fear" (English translation of the Septuagint).  But even here, baptism is not an equivalent term for physical death, and there is otherwise no indication that either Mark or Matthew had this verse in mind.   

In the NT, baptism is sometimes compared to death (Romans 6:3-4; Colossians 2:12).  But the converse isn’t true:  death is never a metaphor for baptism, unless Mark 10:38-39 is the sole exception to this rule. 

There is, however, a baptism that Jesus received that he also gives to his disciples.  When Jesus was baptized by John (Mark 1:9-11; Matthew 3:13-17; Luke 3: 21, 22), he was also baptized with the Holy Spirit .  We are told in several places that it is Jesus himself who baptizes with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Mark 1:8; Matthew 3:11; Luke 3:16; John 1:33; see also Acts 2:3; Malachi 3:2). It therefore is possible that Jesus is referring to Christian baptism that, heretofore, has not been instituted, but which will be at Pentecost.  Further, if the “’cup” is the Eucharist, then the suggestion that the “baptism” is Christian baptism would seem all the more likely. 

Putting it all together:  When Jesus tells James and John that they will drink his cup and undergo his baptism, he may very well be speaking of the sacraments of initiation in which we participate in the death of Christ.  For both the “cup” (the Eucharist) and baptism unite us in Christ’s death and resurrection.  "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ?" (1 Corinthians 10:16).  "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?" (Romans 6:3).

Michael, here exemplifies the "either/or" mentality of the Protestants.  As Catholics, we believe that the Scriptures are pregnant with meaning and may contain several, non-contradictory, meanings.  For instance, we understand that because Mary is the mother of Jesus, she is also the Mother of God (Jesus is God) and the Mother of the Church (the Church is the body of Christ).

So, baptism can be a reference to baptism by fire as well as a reference to baptism of blood. without contradicting Christ's meaning.

6.   Whose cup did the brothers drink?

If the cup that Jesus says the brothers will drink is a reference to their own martyrdom, then James and John would have drunk their own cup, not Jesus'.  In other words, the traditional interpretation that sees the cup as a "cup of death" or as persecution or individual martyrdom can hardly be squared with the precise wording of scripture:  "The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized" (Mark 10:39).  "You will drink my cup" (Matthew 20:23).

Jesus is clear that James and John will drink Jesus’ own cup and undergo his own baptism.  Yet if both the cup and baptism refer to their individual martyrdoms, then it would be inaccurate to say that they drank Jesus’ cup and not their own.  

Alternatively, if Jesus is talking about the Eucharistic cup, then clearly they drank of Jesus’ cup. And if he is talking about Christian baptism, then clearly they experienced this at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit fell upon them, and therefore the wording of Jesus' prediction would be in complete harmony with subsequent history.

We all share in Christ's cup just as we all share in His cross.  We are the body of Christ.

In the rest of the article, Michael makes several straw men arguments and then knocks them down.  He never, however, realizes that his own arguments are made of straw.  I believe I have effectively refuted his errors.  The link to his article is above for any who are interested in reading it.