In a previous post entitled, Jesus’ Trinitarian Freedom, I suggested that Jesus was free not to go to the Cross, in the sense that it was not ordained by the Father, but was freely ordained by the Word through the Holy Spirit in the form of scripture. I suggested this on Matthew’s Gospel which suggests that the father would allow Jesus to use force to bring about salvation and the kingdom. I, further, suggested that “thy will be done was not a response to a response of “no,” but rather part of the question itself (See Matt 26:39). It seems likely that the Father’s response was either a “yes” or “whatever you decide” rather than no in light of the events which occur after the prayer (vs. 47-53).(vs. 47-53).
Barton Jahn states in his post, No Shadow of Turning in Perfect Love (James 1:17):
In Gethsemane and at Calvary, Jesus loses some of His individuality…His personal request to the Father to “remove this cup of suffering.” But in the highest and most sublime sense, in doing so, He gains back His individuality in defining Himself as the sacrificial atonement for sin, the Lamb of God Savior for all eternity.
In what way did Jesus lose his identity? Jesus identity was bound, by his self-determination, to the scriptures. Jesus said that scriptures revealed his identity both as God and the incarnate man (Jn 5:39-40). This is why Jesus says to Peter in Matthew’s Gospel so that scripture might be fulfilled He won’t use force. At no point did Jesus ever lose his identity, if such were the case he would cease to be the Word and the man. His deferment to the Father’s overall plan of a temple-kingdom, did not require; nor need Jesus to lose his identity. Jesus was perfectly capable of bringing about the Kingdom by any means He chose. While the Cross demonstrates God’s love for his creation; it does not make it a necessity; except that the scriptures which ordained it as the methodology required being filled (Rom 5:8). This ordination was a choice, self-imposed by the Word. Which is why Paul would say that Jesus became obedient even to death on a cross. (Phil 2:8)
While I concur with most of Jahn’s claim in his post. I think there is a serious theological flaw in some of his reasoning. I invite others to enter into this discussion and share their thoughts, including Jahn, himself.