I just heard somebody stretch logic past breaking. The cup of God’s wrath was being drunk by our Lord on the cross. All the sin of the world was being laid on him, and, as a way of saying ‘bring it on’ he said “I thirst”. The previous night he had prayed not to have to drink “this cup” but he was obedient unto death and at the end he was so enthusiastic about wanting to take your and my sin on himself, he said he was thirsty for the cup of the wrath of God. So the thinking goes.
Hold on there.
a) nobody wants to drink of that cup when he is in process of it and
b) he was thirsty.
The last time we know he drank was at the last supper, the night before. Then he spent all night, morning, and into the early afternoon being beaten beyond recognition. You go an entire day without drinking anything and losing a significant fraction of your own blood, and tell me it doesn’t make you thirsty. We are also told plainly in the same sentence that he said this (at least in part) to fulfill a prophecy about himself. All the scriptures about him were fulfilled*, including that one.
WHY would you stretch so far to make a point when the truth is quite plain if you will just read the scripture? This man who posited the “bring it on” theory is supposed to be a Bible scholar. Until I can be convinced otherwise – which would take quite some doing – I’m going to say “Fail, buddy. Total fail here.”
*well, all the ones about him while he was here the first time. When he comes back, the rest will be fulfilled.