Talk:Matt 26:36-46

BRJ, I like reading #1, so I think it can/should be put more strongly. You suggested: "1) The spirit of God, which motivates the disciples to follow Jesus, is active (i.e. willing), but the disciples themselves are physically tired and unable to stay awake (i.e. weak)." Isn't "spirit" here referring not to the Holy Ghost or Spirit of God, but the "Spiritual Man" as in the opposite of the Natural Man. It seems to me that this passage highlights our dual nature. So the paraphrase of this reading would be more like "1) the spiritual side of Peter (or each disciple) desires to follow Jesus, but he/she must first overcome the weakness of the flesh." I don't think Christ is justifying or excusing this weakness: just stating the central struggle of mortality that he is right in the middle of experiencing at its most intense. I think it is the same lesson he just made with Peter regarding denying him thrice before the cock crows in Matthew 26:33-34.

PS I looked up " pneu^ma " ("spirit") in the LDS reference CD and it seems that the Greek term is used widely to refer to the Holy Ghost (as in Matthew 28:19 ". . . baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost") as well as other kinds of spirits: the unclean spirits in Matthew 12; Matthew 5's "poor in Spirit"; when Christ "yielded up the ghost" in Matthew 27; etc.

I'm not sure about how to address the word pneuma here, which I researched before the initial posting. I chose to refer to it as the "spirit of God", meaning to convey a divine force that acts upon people. I meant to distinguish this from the Holy Ghost and from Peter's spirit (i.e. that part of him which existed premortally). The first distinction is minor: it doesn't really matter to how we interpret this whether the "motivating influence" is the Holy Ghost or comes directly from the Father, because either way it is a divine influence acting upon the disciples.

The second distinction is more important, because it switches the focus to a force within the disciples. I'm not sure that I agree that that is what Jesus meant, so I'm not ready to accept the paraphrase above. Furthermore, I will say that I favor my original reading because the disciples are not portrayed in the Gospels as having much understanding of Jesus' mission or acting much for themselves; rather, they follow him where he goes (are "carried about by his wind" so to speak), which agrees with the concept of an outside divine force acting upon them here. But I do think there should be some rewording to incorporate both of these views. Perhaps it would be best to put this part of the discussion in the Lexical notes, and then reference that in the Exegesis section?

As for "excusing," that was probably the wrong word to use, because it comes with so much negative baggage. My intent was to contrast reading 1 with reading 2, in that 2 comes across as chastisement, whereas 1 states the problem but refrains from judgment. But I didn't want to state that as a negative: i.e. "Jesus is doing X" instead of "Jesus is not doing Y." but I think I like how you put it: "stating the central struggle of mortality..."--BrianJ 07:14, 26 July 2007 (CEST)

BJ, re the internal/soul comment- but what about that use of pneuma in Mathew 27 to express "yielded up the ghost"? Isn't there a dual meaning here that parallels our word spirit in english? In this context, isn't a reference to the weakness of internal spiritual drives exactly the issue that Christ was making a few verses earlier when he told Peter that he would deny him thrice? Peter expressed that he would sacrifice himself with Christ (motivated by his own spirit) but Christ illustrated his weakness (the flesh) by prophesying that he would deny him. These verses simply clarify that principle. Then the text goes on to show the fulfilling of that prophecy, and ultimately, Peter's growth into a spiritual giant after Pentecost. -joevans3

I would also suggest that while no doubt Christ's words had more than one meaning, as very nicely illustrated by your second and third readings, does it neccesarily follow that his motivation/character at the time was split? In my mind, it would be a flaw of character for Christ to not be completely honest and sincere in his communications with his disciples. Either he was judgmental, or he was not, either he meant it as a chastisement or an observation. Or did I miss your point? Are you positing that one's understanding of the nature of Christ would vary depending on how one read the passage (or very similarly that one's preconceived conception of His nature would affect how one took His statement)? -joevans3

PS I just ran across Ephesians 4:4 this morning. I think a reference in the post to Paul's metaphor there would add. -joevans3

BrianJ, I'm thinking about this more. I have thought of this verse primarily in terms of the 3rd meaning. I get the idea that if we look only at verse 41 the third interpretation doesn't seem to fit as well within the context. But what about verses 36 and 42? They seem to support the concept of this applying to Jesus himself. Maybe I'm trying too hard to save an interpretation that I liked.

Maybe part of the difficulty I'm having in understanding how to fit the last half of verse 41 into context is because I'm not really sure what the first half means. What temptation was it that the disciples should "watch and pray" so that they don't enter into? One would expect that whatever the temptation was, we would expect them to enter into, given that they seem neither to watch nor pray. But it isn't clear that they do commit some sin here.

Verse 38 connect Jesus' own need for help with their watching and praying. Following on verse 38, I almost expect verse 41 to say "watch and pray that I enter not into temptation." If it did say that then the 3rd interpretation would clearly work. Of course, it doesn't say that.

Thoughts? --Matthew Faulconer 07:29, 1 August 2007 (CEST)

I for one hadn't thought about that before. Is it a sin that they fell asleep, since the Lord asked them specifically not to? What do you think, BJ? --joevans3 15:19, 1 August 2007 (CEST)