Matthew 26:39


"He advanced a little and fell prostrate in prayer, saying, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet, not as I will, but as you will.”

I used to assume that this verse was Jesus pleading with the Father to spare him death (and only this), but I read in Brant Pitre’s book Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist that Jesus was referring to the final cup of the Passover meal. Does the Church teach this? Or is it just his opinion?


Opinion. There is much mystery in this. But the Seven Last Words by Saint Robert Bellarmine and others under the same theme ofter insights in this verse.


I used to think it was in reference to just His suffering and death on the Cross, but I believe it’s in relation to the weight of our sins He took upon Himself at that moment (Past, Preset and Future) and presented Himself to the Father covered in all mankind’s sins (Past, Present and Future), which caused His sweating blood, and the pleading of Matthew 26:39.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading


There’s Scott Hahn’s take on it:

A bit off to the side, but,
Stumbled on Brant Pitre, mentioned in a CAF thread started 27 Jan 2011. He’s definitely worth hearing:


I’ve always understood this (and was taught) that he was referring to His passion and death.
But…Why not both? The cup of the passover meal was His blood, shed for the world.

In my mind, it’s all wrapped up together.


Hi, Thom!

I always look to the completeness of Scriptures… note the emphasis on verse 42:

[FONT=“Garamond”][size=]42 Again, a second time, he went away and prayed: ‘My Father,’ he said ‘If this cup cannot pass by without my drinking it, your will be done!’

(St. Matthew 26:42)
…on the surface it would seem that Jesus is simply worried about death or His impending suffering at the hands of the Romans… yet, if we look into the completeness (totality) of Scriptures we may find that it goes well beyond the impeding moments… that it transcends time and space:

27 Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour. But for this cause I came unto this hour.

(St. John 12:27)
…and what is that “Hour” that Jesus is talking about, His Death? His punishment for the sin of the man? It must be quite beyond that since He makes known the issue of his betrayal, apprehension, torture and death, early on:

21 From that time Jesus began to shew to his disciples, that he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the ancients and scribes and chief priests, and be put to death, and the third day rise again.

(St. Matthew 16:21)
…and some what veiled: St. John 8:27-30; 12:7-8, 23; 14:25-31.

So would a man who came to do the Father’s Will dwell and regret the Hour to which He Came:

29 The next day, John saw Jesus coming to him, and he saith: Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the sin of the world.

(St. John 1:29)

What would be Jesus true source of turmoil?:

5 For many will come in my name saying, I am Christ: and they will seduce many…

10 And then shall many be scandalized: and shall betray one another: and shall hate one another. 11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall seduce many. 12 And because iniquity hath abounded, the charity of many shall grow cold. 13 But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved.

(St. Matthew 24:5-13)

20 And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me; 21 That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. (St. John 17:20-21)

8… But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth? (St. Luke 18:8b)

31 And he said to him: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead. (St. Luke 16:31)
…Jesus true anguish is man’s rejection of God’s Gift of Life!

Maran atha!




Well, death certainly would hold no fear for Him. But I believe He foreknew, in one capacity or another, every lash, every beating, scourging, spitting, mocking, every anguished tear of His mother. He was as human as we are; having purposely lowered Himself to our level His pain was the same, and yet He willingly went through with it even though He could’ve walked away at any point before His “arrest”. His very normal and human plea to the Father drives home the awfulness of the act that He was about to make, and endure the consequences of.

Jesus did the reverse of what Adam did; He willingly obeyed the internal voice of the Father while having overwhelming reason not to, whereas Adam had no reason to disobey, and did so almost cavalierly, to satisfy his wife, his peer, a fellow creature, while perhaps gaining something “more” with his “freedom”, not knowing or appreciating what he already had, what he was forfeiting. Jesus did for love what Adam didn’t yet love enough to do; He obeyed.


Blessed Anne Emmerich never wrote a single word of the revelations attributed to her and I certainly don’t believe them. They were written by Clemens Brentano who appears to have at least partially fabricated the writings. When her case came up for beatification to the Vatican before the Congregation for the causes of Saints her so-called writings were discarded as part of the process.
Father Peter Gumpel, who was involved in the study of the issues for the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints said : “It is absolutely not certain that she ever wrote this. There is a serious problem of authenticity”

The Vatican does not endorse the authenticity of the books written by Brentano.


What reason would Clemens Brentano have to fake some of Blessed Anne Emmerich visions ?


I would stick with St. John Chrysostom and St. Cyril of Alexandria, not Brant Pitre. They both explain that it is surely talking about the passion that He will undergo that will destroy death. They make very clear that this is willed by Christ, so the meaning must be something else. They both explain that to show that the Word really became man, he allowed his body to hunger, sweat, etc, and this is just another example of demonstrating that he really did take on humanity and did not just appear to be human. They also explain that this is a teaching moment, to show that we should not enter into dangerous environments out of pride, but show humility and pray and wait for God. St. Cyril adds that he was also demonstrating His sadness over the loss of Israel since they would be the cause of His death.

Here are links to their writings:

St. John Chrysostom:

St. Cyril of Alexandria


How would I know? The Church believes that though. That’s why the writings are NOT approved.


They have the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat.

God Bless



Those don’t necessarily guarantee their veracity.


I hope you really don’t think that means they approved by the Church and are true!


Hi, I personally don’t see how it could be referring to the last cup at the Passover meal. The last cup, which is the fourth and final cup, is “The Cup of Praise” and stands for the fourth “I will” in Exodus, which for the fourth cup is “I will take you unto me for a people” (Exodus 6:6&7) It is a special promise that God will take us unto himself.

Jesus would actually want to fulfill the final cup and bring salvation to its fullness.

So I must strongly disagree, having presented a few Passover dinners myself.


I listened to Scott Hahn’s take on the fourth cup of the Passover meal. He asserts that Jesus skipped that portion of the meal, and that he “drank” the fourth cup when he was dying on the cross and was given a sponge soaked in vinegar or “common wine” on a branch of hyssop to drink. Hahn asserts that because the bible does not mention Christ drinking the 4th cup at the meal, that he didn’t drink it at that point. And also he says that it was after the third cup that Jesus said, “I will not drink anymore of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” So he backs up his assertion the Jesus didn’t drink the 4th cup at the meal with that scripture.

If we read the various gospels concerning the last supper, they are not an attempt to explain the order of the Passover ceremony and meal.If we read them, it would seem that Jesus only drank from the cup twice. And Luke’s version in Luke 22:17-20 has Jesus drinking either the 1st cup or the 2nd cup–it’s not clear which, then he says “I will not drink of the fruit of the vine anymore…” And AFTER that, he takes the 3rd cup (Luke 22:20) and blesses it and gives it as his blood, and then he drinks. So already, something is wrong with Scott Hahn’s interpretation.

Also, the unleavened bread which Jesus blessed after the meal and gave us as his body was the 2nd time unleavened bread was eaten in the ceremony. The scriptures don’t mention the first eating, so does that mean that Jesus skipped that portion also?

According to the law 4 cups of wine must be drank at the ceremony. If someone could not afford 4 cups of wine they either had to sell something they had in order to buy all the wine needed, or they could go to the temple and they would be given the money from the temple funds. I cannot imagine Jesus “just skipping” the fourth cup at the ceremony.

The 3rd cup – the cup Jesus blessed and gave as his body – is called “The Cup of redemption” and stands for the 3rd “I Will” of Exodus 6:6-7 which is God’s promise that "I will redeem them with an outstretched arm. This finds its fulfillment in the death of Christ on the cross when his arms were outstretched and he redeemed us by his death on the cross.

The 4th cup of the meal has not been fulfilled yet, but looks forward to the future. The Jewish people believe it will be fulfilled when the Messiah comes and God will take the Jewish people unto himself. We as Christians believe the 4th cup will be fulfilled at Christ’s 2nd coming when Jesus will come again and take us unto himself.

After all my years in Messianic Judaism and sitting under some learned Messianic Rabbis, I have never heard or read that Jesus did not drink the 4th cup at the Passover meal, but “drank” it on the cross. This, to me, seems like a flawed premise on which a doctrine has been built around.


sorry, typed this quickly before I left for church, but of course I meant that he gave the cup as his blood. :o


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit