Gethsemane’s Human Question

By TassieSeneviratne

In his book titled “Gethsemane’s Human Question” published in 1960, by The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd., A.C. d’ASeneviratne, raises a pertinent question.  I’ll present his argument briefly with excerpts from his treatise. 

 “The traditional view of Christ’s prayer in Gethsemane, as expounded by St Thomas Aquinas, is for many the orthodox and authoritative view.  Tradition, orthodoxy, authority-certainly these are of great value and are worthy of all respect.  Every lawyer acknowledges the authority of judges to interpret the law, and in daily practice every lawyer is guided by their decisions.  Yet, If a judge has based his decision on some principle, say, of Roman-Dutch law, if what he relied on was but a translation of the Roman-Dutch jurist’s Latin; and if a lawyer were to have cause for doubting the accuracy of the translation, it would be no disrespect of the judge’s authority- it may even be the practitioner’s duty – to take steps for having the matter reviewed by a court of competent jurisdiction.

 For the teaching of Thomas Aquinas the practitioner of Christianity cannot but have thehighest regard.  But scholarly andsaintly as Aquinas undoubtedly was, he had not given his mind to the task of interpretingtheprayer of Christ in Gethsemane.  He addressed himself purely to explaining Christ’s behavior, accepting what in the course of twelvecenturies hadbecome the traditional interpretation of His words.”

 “The bible story of the Garden of Eden is allegory.  TheBible story of the Garden of Gethsemane is fact.  How strange that the factual account should prove more baffling than the allegorical. Baffling it is; it baffles both the profane and the devout.”

The author goes on to discuss the interpretations of reputed authors such as Giovanni Papini, Person-Smith, and Oursler, who have contributed to the traditional view and contends:- “all these assertions, no matter how the modes of expression vary, are based upon one and the same interpretation of the words of Christ: that He was praying to be relieved of a duty awaiting Him.  What is there in the Gospel accounts to warrant this assumption?  Papini may be right in thinking that no man will ever know the true significance of the words spoken by the Son to the Father. But let no man, in attempting to interpret those words, blink the significance of other words which on the verge of Gethsemane, Jesus spoke to men.”

 “He told His disciples (John XII: 23) that the time had come for Him to achieve His glory.  Helikened Himself (verse 24) to a grain of wheat that must fall to the ground and die, in order to bring forth rich fruit.  Were they then to suppose, He asked, that He would say, “Father, save me from this hour of trial?” And He gave them the answer: “For this cause came I unto this hour”.  Did that give them no inkling of what He was warning them not to think of Him?

 “One disciple appears to have understood.  The meticulous care with which these words of Christ have been faithfully recorded in the Forth Gospel suggests that St John was under no delusion regarding their true purport.  But how false are those copyists who ignored the second and most essential question-mark in the 27^th verse of the 12^th chapter.  Happily, it has been restored in Weiss’s edition of the Greek New Testament, and the verse may be translated:-

“Now is my soul troubled: and what shall I say?-“Father save me from this hour?”  But for this cause came I unto this hour.

“The words “Father, save me from this hour” were not words of prayer.  He spoke them not for Himself, but for their sakes.  Had St Peter got his Master’s meaning right, there would have been no need for the Master to remind him.  “The cup which my Father gave me, shall I not drink it?” (JohnXV111 :11)

“This was his labour; He wrestled in prayer for this. This it was that troubled His soul and wrung from His body the sweat that struck the physician in Luke as a symptom worth recording.”

 “In what light did the chosen three see it as it ran down on the sightless clod? Twice he came to them, found them asleep, and bade them watch and pray. When he came the third and last time, it was to tell them they might sleep on – because it was enough.(Matt. 26:39-45)”

The translation/interpretation of Matt. 26:37-45 has contradictions within itself: “He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee along with him, and he began to be sorrowful and troubled. Then He said to them, “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me.” Going a little farther, He fell to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible,may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”- The contradictions in terms are that the disciples could not have heard Christ praying to the Father a distance away with His head to the ground, especially as they had fallen asleep.

“What is the truth? More precisely, which is the truth? Was His prayer that the cross be averted, or that it be expedited? This surely is a question that merits official consideration by the (Christian)Church.”

(The writer is a son of the book’s author)