The Baptism of the Cup. Matthew 20:20-28
It is important to stand back and see the structure of the passage since chapter eighteen. Everything between the beginning of this section and the end of the section relates to the themes that are set forth in it. That has to do with our position, our status, our roles and responsibilities in the future kingdom. We see this brought out through the confusion, the error and the arrogance of the disciples who just haven't quite figured out what the issues of the spiritual life actually are.
In Matthew 18:1 we see the disciples raise an issue that comes out of a context where Jesus has taken three of the disciples, and seemingly a position of privilege and honor, to go with Him up on to the Mount of Transfiguration. They saw Him in His glory and they also saw Moses and Elijah. When they came down they found the rest of the disciples trying to cast a demon out and couldn't. They lacked faith. That is what Jesus confronts them with. It is becoming apparent that there is some sort of distinction taking place within them and they began to argue amongst themselves about who was going to be the greatest in the kingdom.
So they come to Jesus with this question: “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” From the time this term “kingdom of heaven” was first used by John the Baptist there is no redefinition of it. John presented the kingdom as prophesied, anticipated and expected from the Old Testament passages: that it would be a literal, geophysical kingdom that would be centered in Jerusalem with a literal, physical King, a descendent of David, ruling on the throne in Jerusalem. This is going to be the Messiah, the messianic King anticipated and prophesied in the Old Testament.
Jesus has the same message. He said: “Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand”. Then He sent His disciples out to the house of Judah and the house of Israel, and He said this is the message: “Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand”. At no point is there a redefinition of the concept of kingdom.
That is important to understand because in some areas of Christianity those who do not hold to a consistent literal interpretation of Scripture there is the idea of the kingdom is transformed from a literal, physical, Jewish kingdom to a kingdom that is spiritual. This is found in many denominations from Roman Catholic theology to Lutheran theology, to Calvinist theology, etc. who hold to what is called amillennialism—no millennium, no literal thousand-year reign of Christ. So this is a rejection of a historic doctrine that was believed in the early church, called chiliasm.
The disciples clearly understand the concept of the kingdom as a future literal, geopolitical kingdom of the earth ruled by the Messiah. Jesus does not correct their understanding of the kingdom. He doesn't say their thinking about it is all wrong. Neither will He correct it when James and John and their mother come to Him in 20:20 to request that the two sons sit on the right and the left hand of Jesus when He comes in His kingdom. What He does in both places is correct their understanding of what it means to be great in the kingdom, what it means to have status in the kingdom. He is going to focus them on the fact that they are to be servants and not to be concerned about the status. They are to be like little children in the ancient world who had no status whatsoever and nobody paid attention to them. That is the mentality that Jesus is saying should characterize disciples.
It is that theme of true humility and being a servant of one another, not seeking any kind of glorification or status that runs through this whole section, and it will come to a conclusion in this passage.
Verses 17-19 focus on what Jesus was going to do when He went to the cross, identifying Him as the Son of Man; and that brackets this section with the last two verses, which again returns to the focus of what Jesus would do on the cross, and again refers to Him as the Son of Man. Both of those are bringing our attention to the fact that what Jesus was doing as the greater son of David, the Promised Messiah, was not to seek self-glorification but He was coming to serve through one of the most horrid deaths ever conceived in the history of mankind. Crucifixion was a most horrible death of unimaginable torture and suffering that was devised in the ancient world. Me must have been a physically powerful human being to have continued to withstand all of what he went through, and He went through that in order to serve us. That is the focal point here: understanding that He is not doing this for personal glorification that would be expected from a king, but He was doing this in order to serve His creatures and to provide salvation for them. That frames this little episode, and it really helps when we understand that to drive home the point of what Jesus is teaching them in this situation.
So what we have seen since the beginning of chapter nineteen is that Jesus has left Galilee and travelled to the south. He is probably near the Jordan River when this takes place. Probably others were travelling with Him. And the question that comes up is who is the greatest in the kingdom. They are asking who will sit in the seats of highest honor. What they are doing is, like many of us, is approaching the teaching of Scripture from the background of their own human viewpoint thinking—the influence of the culture, the thinking that has been bred into them through the influence of their peers and the leaders of their country--rather than thinking in terms of what God has revealed.
There is always this conflict for the believer between the thinking that is consistent with the world system, the thinking that is consistent with the sin nature, and the thinking that God expects us to have that imitates ands mirrors His kind of thinking. The role of spiritual growth is to replace the thinking of the world that is in our soul with the thinking of God. That is Romans 12:2, “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind”. That takes place through the study of God's Word, and it doesn't just happen on Sunday morning. We live in a world that inculcates us with human viewpoint paganism day in and day out. It gets worse and worse and worse. But what we see here is that we have to be transformed if we are going to be true disciples.
Being a disciple isn't the same as being saved. There is only one condition for being saved and that is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, trusting that He died on the cross to pay the penalty for your sins. But once we are a new creature in Christ, once we are justified, and once we are regenerated, then we have to grow. Discipleship is related to spiritual growth and spiritual advance and there are many conditions that Jesus expresses for discipleship. We grow through the study, the intake, the assimilation of God's Word, and then applying it under the ministry of God the Holy Spirit.
The disciples are coming to this with this human viewpoint of leadership. What we have in the Scripture is that the role of a leader is to be a servant. He is to be focused upon the needs of those he is leading, and to lead by virtue of humility, not in a manner that is self-serving. They haven't quite caught that yet and are still thinking in terms of human viewpoint ideas of leadership and want to know who is going to be great in the kingdom.
When Jesus comes to the end of this section He talks about the essence of leadership and says, (v. 27) “Whoever desires to be first among you [i.e. directly addressing this issue of who is going to be great or have the position of honor] shall be your slave”. Then, “just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” The first word “slave” in v. 27 is the Greek DOULOS, and the second, translated “serve” is the verb DIAKONEO – the noun is the word deacon, someone who is a servant.
This is directly related to the mission of Jesus as the second person of the Trinity who took on humanity and entered into human history. Philippians 2:7 says that He emptied Himself by taking on the form of a bondservant, and that is the world DOULOS, the same word that we have in Matthew 20:27 (to be a slave). This is what Jesus does, and because He was willing to humble Himself by being obedient to the point of death, even the most humiliating death ever, He will be exalted above every name in heaven and on earth and receive ultimate glorification. That is the result of Him being the perfect servant.
What we see now is that James and John have enlisted their mother in order to advance their cause with Jesus. The disciples all through this section have continued to argue amongst themselves about who is going to be greatest. Matthew 20:20 NASB “Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to Jesus with her sons, bowing down and making a request of Him.” We know from comparing other Scriptures that this is Salome who is also related to Mary. She is Mary's aunt, so that means that James and John are cousins and this is sort of a family affair among the disciples. They think that because they are closely related to Jesus that they should be on each side of the throne.
There are some distinctions between the account in Matthew and the account in Mark. There is no parallel account in either Luke or John. Mark is not saying anything about Salome being along on the trip, he just focuses on the two brothers. That doesn't mean there is a conflict here. Mark is probably being much more efficient in his story telling, not giving out extraneous details, whereas Matthew includes a little more evidence. Notice that James and John are with Salome.
Matthew 20:21 NASB “And He said to her, 'What do you wish?' She said to Him, 'Command that in Your kingdom these two sons of mine may sit one on Your right and one on Your left'.”
Salome begins with a question and then Jesus understood that she was really the proxy for the two boys and probably looks at them like “And you?” Then they would have rephrased the question because they use a little bit different terminology. So He gets a question from Mom and then He gets the same question from the two boys. But there is not a conflict here; it is just the way the two authors expressed the episode.
In Mark we are told that James and John come up, and when Jesus looks at them and they rephrase the question, they say, “Teacher, we want to do for you whatever we ask”. That seems a little arrogant, doesn't it? So apparently the tension among the disciples about who is going to be great has really increased by this point and now they are going to do whatever they think to end the situation. Jesus said: “What do you want me to do?” They say, “Grant us that one of us may sit on your right hand and the other on your left in your glory”. When Salome asked the question she said, “in your kingdom”. What we see here by the parallel is that glory is just another way to refer to kingdom, talking about the glorious kingdom of the Messiah. It would be referred to both ways so they are asking the same question.
They want the two positions of honor. The key position of honor is on the right. There is something significant in Scripture when Jesus separates the sheep and the goats. He has the goats on the left, the sheep on the right, and there always seems to be this choice in Scripture that those who are on the correct side of the issue are on the right and those on the wrong side of the issue are on the left. You can apply that politically or any way you wish but there seems to be a Scriptural basis for this sort of distinction. But anyhow, when there are going to be two positions of honor one would be on the right, the other on the left, so Jesus would be flanked by James and John.
Jesus clearly understood that the two boys put up Mom to this, because when He answers He addresses the two boys. I have sort of paraphrased this by adding in brackets the fact that He is using a second person plural to express His answer.
Matthew 20:22 NASB “But Jesus answered, 'You [all] do not know what you are asking...' ” He is clearly talking to the two. What we learn from the account in both Matthew and Mark is that they have come on their own, because in verse 24 we read, “And [when] hearing {this,} the ten became indignant with the two brothers.” So they are just off, and there is Jesus, Salome and the two boys apart from the disciples, and later the other disciples will hear about it and get a bit upset that there is this end run that has been attempted by James and John.
“... 'Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?' They said to Him, 'We are able'.” Mark 10:38 NASB “But 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?' ”
“be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized” is not in all of our texts for Matthew. Some of the modern translations—NIV, NASB ESB, or other—don't have this in their text. They may be in the margin, some of them may put it there in brackets with a comment in the margin saying, “These are not in the oldest”, and then they make a value judgment, “and best MSS.” Well, that is highly debated. There are some MSS (basically four) that come out of Egypt where certain documents would survive longer in that drier climate, but there is a discrepancy in how people handle these differences.
One view is called the Majority Text because the vast majority of MSS reflect that particular reading. That is true in this case. The Majority Text has this in Matthew and I think that is a correct reading. But even if it isn't in Matthew, it is in Mark. Mark 10:39 NASB “They said to Him, 'We are able.' And Jesus said to them, 'The cup that I drink you shall drink; and you shall be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized'.” There is no textual variance in the Mark passage.
But when we get to this word “baptism” there is often a lot of misunderstanding about baptism, and the word that usually come to people's minds when they hear baptism is the word water. But water is not always present when you have baptism in Scripture. In fact, we have to understand the literal meaning of the word BAPTIZO as well as its significance. It means literally to dip something, to plunge into something, to immerse into something. Therefore, in the debate that has gone on through church history, sprinkling versus immersion, the immersionists are correct.
What happened in the early church was that when they got away from the literal interpretation, and due to various other factors, they opted for sprinkling rather than immersion. Then after the fourth century when Constantine legitimised Christianity in the Roman Empire and it became the state religion there was the identification of the state with Christianity up until the Protestant Reformation. So entering into the state as a citizen was identified with entering into the church as a member of the church, which was through infant baptism. There was this confusion where politics and religion come together and entering into the state was the same as entering into the church. If somebody came along and said wait a minute, you can't do baptism as infants, it has nothing to do with citizenry, baptism has to do with whether or not you have believed that Jesus died for your sins, they became known as Anabaptists—ana=second baptism. Most people had already been baptized as infants.
When the Reformation came along the Anabaptists said two things: you have to have separation of church and state, and there has to be believers' baptism, baptism by immersion.
Baptism scripturally is by immersion. But it is not just the act of baptism that is significant, it is what it signifies. It is an action that signifies identification with someone or something—an action, an object, or a new status in life. In water baptism it is teaching a spiritual truth of our identification with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection at the instant of faith alone in Christ alone.
That is a difficult doctrine for people to understand—positional truth, identification with Christ—and so the Lord has given us a very practical visual aid to teach that. Unfortunately a lot of people don't get the teaching with the visual aid. But the significance is identification.
There are eight different baptisms in the New Testament. The first three are ritual baptisms. The first is the baptism of Jesus. Some people say they want to follow Jesus in baptism, but no one can do that. Jesus' baptism was a unique baptism that inaugurated His public ministry. It was His public anointing as prophet and priest in terms of His ministry. He was not following John's baptism. John's baptism was “Repent for the kingdom of heaven was at hand”, but Jesus wasn't repenting of anything. Jesus' baptism wasn't John's baptism even though John performed the baptism.
Then we have the baptism of John the Baptist that was to identify the Jews of his day with his message presenting the kingdom to Israel. This also involved water.
The third ritual baptism is believers' baptism, baptism by immersion based on a person's faith in Jesus Christ as savior.
But then there are five dry baptisms, also called real baptisms as opposed to a ritual baptism. There is the baptism of Noah, 1 Peter 3:20, 21. Those who were on the ark were identified with Noah's faith. They survived in a state of dryness; the people who were not identified were the ones who got wet.
The baptism of Moses. Water was also involved there, 1 Corinthians 10:2. Those who were identified with Moses went through the Read Sea but they were dry. The ones who not identified with Moses were Pharaoh's army and they are the ones who got wet.
There is the baptism of fire, which was mentioned by John the Baptist: that one would come after him who would baptize by means of fire and by means of the Holy Spirit. Fire there refers to judgment and that will come at the Second Advent.
Then there is the baptism which is mentioned in this passage called the baptism of the cup. Sometimes it is called the baptism of the cross but that is erroneous terminology because this baptism is not unique to Jesus.
Then the fifth is the baptism by means of God the Holy Spirit, which is the distinguishing character of the church age. It began on the day of Pentecost and there will be no baptism by the Holy Spirit once the church is taken to be with the Lord at the Rapture.
The concept that we have here in the cup is not the cup itself but what is in the cup. Jesus isn't talking about being immersed in the cup or sprinkled in the cup. It is focusing on the content of the cup. The cup as a metaphor is used many times in the Old Testament. It is also used in the book of Revelation and most commonly it is used to refer to judgment. That which is poured out of the cup is God's judgment on either personal individual discipline or divine judgment on nations and on Israel. It is also used to refer to blessing. There are references to the cup of blessing. So the cup can either be positive in terms of blessing or negative in terms of judgment, and so we have to look at the context to see what it is talking about.
Jesus used it several times, along with this passage, to talk about what was going to take place at the cross. In John 18:11 He is at the Garden of Gethsemane. Peter has just chopped the ear off of the servant of the high priest. Jesus put the ear back on and healed it and told Peter to put away his sword. Then He said: “Shall I not drink the cup which my Father has given me?”
A lot of us, because we know what is going to happen (He is going to go to the cross) say what is in the cup is the cross. But we have a problem there because of what is said here. What He is talking about with reference to the cup is that it is the cup of suffering—in a more generic sense, not as precise as the cross. In Matthew 26:39 Jesus prays: “Father let this cup pass from me”. Matthew 26:42, “This cup cannot pass away from me unless I drink it”, which means to experience the judgment, the suffering. Mark 14:36, He prays to the Father: “Take this cup away from me”. Luke 22:42, “Father if it is your will take this cup away from me”.
Matthew 20:22 NASB “But Jesus answered, 'You [all] do not know what you are asking...' ” You think you do, but you don't. Remember they have never accepted, understood or been able to process His statements like the one He has just made in vv. 18, 19 that He was going to be betrayed by the chief priests and scribes, that He would be condemned to death, delivered to the Gentiles to mock and scourge and crucify, and that He would rise on the third day. So He is telling them that they just don't understand. The Greek verb for “know” here is OIDA, which means more deep, internal knowledge.
Jesus said, “Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?” That is just imagery for participating in the contents of the cup where it becomes part of Him. Much like in the Lord's table where drinking the cup is taking something in, making it a part of us. It is a picture of trusting in the savior.
Then He says, “[are you able] be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized”. What He is indicating by that question is that they can be baptized with the same baptism that He is baptized with. So if the baptism of the cup is as narrow (as it is often taught) as the cross, they are not going to the cross. Ten of the eleven are going to die for the gospel but they won't all die by crucifixions, so baptism of the cup can't be as narrow as the cross because they are going to be baptized with it also. Matthew 20:23 NASB “He said to them, “My cup you shall drink ...”
So “baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized” means that we all as believers can be baptized with the cup, if we understand the cup correctly. The question is, as it is for them, “Are you able?” What does that describe? That describes the unjust suffering, undeserved suffering, that may be part of our spiritual life.
Since Matthew and Mark both clearly state that Jesus said the disciples would drink the same cup and be baptized with the same baptism the imagery cannot be narrowed to the cross alone because only Jesus goes to the cross like that. To be baptized with the cup and to drink the cup meant that the disciples would also encounter unjust and undeserved suffering because of their faith in Christ. Are we willing to do that?
So let me show how Peter learned this lesson. 1 Peter was written to a group of messianic Jews who were going through undeserved suffering and facing it at every turn. Peter was writing to tell them how to handle it, how to face it on divine resources; and those principles apply down through the ages. The only way we can handle the sufferings and challenges if life, especially those that come because we are believers, is in the power of God the Holy Spirit and the basis of God's Word together.
1 Peter 1:11 NASB “[OT prophets were] seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow.”
Jesus is teaching that if you really want to have glory in the kingdom then you have to be willing to drink from the same cup He drinks from and be baptized with the same baptism. You have to be willing to suffer for/with Christ, and Paul says in Romans chapter eight that this also leads to being joint heirs with Christ.
1 Peter 2:19 NASB “For this {finds} favor [suffering unjustly], if for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly.” Here we see the same pattern that is to characterize the believer. [20] “For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer {for it} you patiently endure it, this {finds} favor with God.” This is what it means to be grace oriented: to suffer patiently and endure it.
1 Peter 2:21 NASB “For you [every believer] have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps.” Notice the parallel is unjust suffering, not the specific kind of suffering on the cross. Christ left us an example. He is the pattern.
1 Pet 2:22 NASB “WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH; [23] and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting {Himself} to Him who judges righteously”. The normal response that people have is that when they are reviled they snap back, attack, use hand gestures or whatever to make a point known. When they suffer they threaten and do all of these things, but that is not what you do if you are oriented to grace. If you have divine viewpoint you don't revile when you are reviled, you don't threaten when you suffer; but you commit yourself to God who will eventually make all things right.
The pattern is Jesus: 1 Peter 2:24 NASB “and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness ...”
1 Peter 3:13 NASB “Who is there to harm you if you prove zealous for what is good? [14] But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed...” Again, dealing with unjust suffering.
The illustration: 1 Peter 3:16 NASB “and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame. [17] For it is better, if God should will it so, that you suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong.”
The example: 1 Peter 3:18 NASB “For Christ also died for sins once for all, {the} just for {the} unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit.” Christ is the example of suffering. That is the point of drinking the cup and being baptized with the baptism He was baptized with.
1 Peter 4:1 NASB “Therefore, since Christ has suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same purpose [thoughts], because he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin …. [12] Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing were happening to you; [13] but to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing, so that also at the revelation of His glory you may rejoice with exultation.”
We will come back to this when talking about rewards and judgment because those who suffer with Christ are promised that they will be joint heirs with Christ. And that is distinct from being heirs with God.
The point here that Jesus is making is that for there to be any honor or glory in the kingdom then we have to follow the Lord Jesus Christ.
We have a wonderful promise in 2 Timothy 3:12 NASB “Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.” This is one of those positive things you never hear in a gospel presentation!
Matthew 20:24 NASB “And hearing {this,} the ten became indignant with the two brothers.” Then Jesus gave them a little lesson in leadership. [25] “But Jesus called them to Himself and said, 'You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them [human viewpoint leadership] and {their} great men exercise authority over them. [26, contrast] “It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, [27] and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave [DIAKONOS]”. That is the point of Christian leadership.
Parents, you exercise that leadership by being servants to your children because you need to teach them how to live a godly life. That takes time, energy and creativity; and often that runs counter to spending your time pursuing your own career. It is putting your kids first over your own ambitions, your own career.
It affects each of us individually being leaders in the local church, being leaders in whatever arena we are. The focus is not on seeking status or being somebody, but on being a servant first and foremost of the Lord and carrying out the mission that He has given us to make disciples.