Translate

Monday, February 23, 2026

‘Father … let this Cup pass from me’

 

 


“Why did Jesus speak about his death as “drinking” a “cup”?

What cup is he talking about?”

 Dr. Brant Pitre

 

 

In the Foreword to Scott Hahn’s book, The Fourth Cup (2018), Dr. Brant Pitre writes:

The Fourth Cup

 

Jesus of Nazareth was a man of many mysteries. He taught in puzzling parables, he performed strange signs and wonders, he asked riddle-like question after question. And his Jewish disciples and the Jewish crowds he taught—although he frequently stumped them—loved it.

But the mysteries of Jesus didn’t end with his public ministry. According to the Gospels, he continued to do and say puzzling things right up to the moment of his death. One of the greatest riddles of Jesus’ Passion involves the mysterious vow that he made during the Last Supper. On the night he was betrayed, toward the end of the meal, Jesus solemnly declared that he would not drink “the fruit of the vine” again until the coming of “the kingdom of God” (Luke 22:18; cf. Matthew 26:29; Mark 14:25). Later on, when he was on the way to Golgotha and the soldiers tried to offer him wine, true to his word, “he would not drink it” (Matthew 26:34; cf. Mark 14:23). On the other hand, according to the Gospel of John, at the very last moment of his life, right before he died on the cross, Jesus requested for wine to be given to him, saying: “I thirst” (John 19:28). Even more mysterious, after drinking the wine he declared, “It is finished,” bowed his head, and gave up his spirit (John 19:30).

What are we to make of this riddle? How could Jesus vow at the Last Supper not to drink wine again, refuse it on the way to the cross, then turn around and ask for a drink right before he died? How can we reconcile Jesus’ words at the Last Supper with his words on the cross? Was he breaking his vow? Or was something else going on?

To top it all off, there’s one more puzzle to ponder—one that takes place between the upper room and Calvary. In the Garden of Gethsemane, when Jesus was praying about his death, he said something odd: “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will” (Matthew 26:39). And then again: “My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done” (Matthew 26:42). Now, if you were about to be crucified, is this how you would have prayed? Why did Jesus speak about his death as “drinking” a “cup”? What cup is he talking about?

In The Fourth Cup, Dr. Scott Hahn gives us the keys to unlocking this mystery—the mystery of the Last Supper and the cross. He does this in two ways: first, by going back to the Jewish roots of Jesus’ words and deeds, and second, by telling you the story of his own personal journey from Protestantism to Catholicism. The result reads almost like a detective novel—an exhilarating journey of discovery that will change the way you see the Last Supper, the Passion of Christ, and the Eucharist forever. 

I’ll never forget the first time I heard one of Dr. Hahn’s presentations on the fourth cup. I was completely blown away. It was like reading the Passion of Christ again for the first time. Don’t get me wrong: it’s not as if I had spent nights lying awake wondering why Jesus vowed never to drink wine again at the Last Supper and why he asked for a drink on Good Friday. Nor had I wondered all that much about why Jesus talked about his crucifixion as drinking a “cup.” I just took these things for granted. But after listening to Dr. Hahn’s lecture, it was like the pieces of a puzzle that I didn’t even realize were there suddenly fell into place. What I had always wondered about was this: Why do Catholics believe that the Eucharist is a sacrifice? Didn’t Jesus offer himself “once and for all” on Calvary? What is the link between Jesus’ offering of his body and blood at the Last Supper and his death on the cross?

 

If you’ve ever wondered the same thing, or if you’ve ever celebrated a Passover seder, or if you’ve ever just wanted to deepen your understanding of the Jewish roots of the Eucharist, then I’ve got one message for you, read this book. And don’t just read it. Pray about it. Reflect on it. And share it with others.

Because if you’re anything like me, once you begin to see the mystery of the Last Supper and the cross through ancient Jewish eyes, it will completely change your life. For, as r. Hahn shows, the Passover of Jesus that began in the upper room and was consummated on Calvary is still with us today. Whenever and wherever Mass is celebrated, the Paschal Mystery—that is, the “Passover” mystery—is made truly present. The Fourth Cup not only solves the mystery of Jesus’ vow, it will also give you the missing link between the upper room and Golgotha and help you to see more clearly how the sacrifice of Christ at the Last Supper and the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary are the same sacrifice “poured out for the forgiveness of sins” and the redemption of the world (Matthew 26:28).

 

 

 

 

Wednesday, February 4, 2026

High Priest, Jesus (Joshua), brand plucked out of the fire

 


 

by

 Damien F. Mackey

 

 

And the LORD said unto Satan The LORD rebuke thee O Satan even the LORD 

that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?” 

 

Zechariah 3:2

 

  

What could this text possibly mean?

 

Well, for me it means that the high priest, Joshua (Jesus), was the same as the priest, Ezra, the Azariah of Daniel 3 who was in the Burning Fiery Furnace. That Ezra was, therefore, the high priest. That Jesus-Ezra-Azariah was in the fire, and, yet, was saved – he was literally “plucked out of the fire”.

 

This is not an allegory, then, but hard reality!

 

Moreover, this Jesus was the very author of the Book of Sirach.

He was Jesus, son of Eleazer, son of Sira[ch].

 

“The Wisdom of Ben Sira derives its title from the author, “Yeshua [Jesus], son of Eleazar, son of Sira” (50:27). This seems to be the earliest title of the book”. 

 

Bible Gateway

 

 

Compare the genealogy of the high priest, Jesus, son of Jehozadak, son of Seraiah:

Topical Bible: Jehozadak

“[Jehozadak] is primarily recognized as the father of Jeshua (Joshua) the high priest, who played a crucial role in the rebuilding of the Temple after the Babylonian exile. Jehozadak was the son of Seraiah …”. 

 

Jehozadak, generally thought to have been Ezra’s brother, is actually omitted in Ezra’s impressive genealogy in Ezra 7:1-5:

 

Ezra son of Seraiah, the son of Azariah, the son of Hilkiah, the son of Shallum, the son of Zadok, the son of Ahitub, the son of Amariah, the son of Azariah, the son of Meraioth, the son of Zerahiah, the son of Uzzi, the son of Bukki, the son of Abishua, the son of Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the chief priest ….

 

But the genealogy is widely regarded as being not a fully comprehensive one:

In Ezra 7:1-5, how do we reconcile the seemingly abbreviated genealogy of Ezra with other Old Testament genealogical records that appear longer or contradictory?

The genealogy of Ezra in Ezra 7:11 traces his lineage back to Aaron, the chief priest, highlighting his priestly authority. Ezra's genealogy is succinct, omitting some generations, which is typical in biblical genealogies”.

 

Ezra (Azariah) was son of Jehozadak, son of Seraiah.

The high priest, Jesus, was son of Jehozadak, son of Seraiah.

Jesus (author of Sirach), was son of Eleazer, son of Sira[ch].

 

As Azariah, Ezra was in the Burning Fiery Furnace.

As the high priest, Jesus, he was “plucked out of the fire”.

And so, apparently, as Jesus ben Sirach, was he “in the heart of a fire” (Sirach 51:1, 2, 4):

 

‘I will give thanks to you, Lord and King … for you have been protector and

support to me, and redeemed my body from destruction … from the stifling heat which hemmed me in, from the heart of a fire which I had not kindled’.

 

Sirach 51:1, 2, 4

 

 

Saved ‘from the heart of a fire’, ‘hemmed in’ by its ‘stifling heat’.

Could Jesus ben Sirach’s account here be a graphic description by one who had actually stood in the heart of the raging fire? - had stood inside “the burning fiery furnace” of King Nebuchednezzar? (Daniel 3:20).

 

Another translation (GNT) renders the vivid account of the Lord’s saving of Sirach as follows (Sirach 51:3-5): “… from the glaring hatred of my enemies, who wanted to put an end to my life; from suffocation in oppressive smoke rising from fires that I did not light; from death itself; from vicious slander reported to the king”.

 

According to the far more dispassionate account of the same (so I think) incident as narrated in Daniel 3:49-50:

 

… the angel of the Lord came down into the furnace beside Azariah and his companions; he drove the flames of the fire outwards, and fanned into them, in the heart of the furnace, a coolness such as wind and dew will bring, so that the fire did not even touch them or cause them any pain or distress.

 

Note that both texts refer almost identically to “the heart of the fire [the furnace]”.

 

Well, if Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) chapter 51 has any relevance to the fiery furnace situation, if Jesus ben Sirach were Azariah-Ezra, then he himself appears to have been the one who had decided to appeal prayerfully to the Divine mercy for help and protection (vv. 6-12):

 

I was once brought face-to-face with death; enemies surrounded me everywhere. I looked for someone to help me, but there was no one there. But then, O Lord, I remembered how merciful you are and what you had done in times past. I remembered that you rescue those who rely on you, that you save them from their enemies. Then from here on earth I prayed to you to rescue me from death. I prayed, O Lord, you are my Father; do not abandon me to my troubles when I am helpless against arrogant enemies. I will always praise you and sing hymns of thanksgiving. You answered my prayer, and saved me from the threat of destruction. And so I thank you and praise you.

 

O Lord, I praise you!

 

The three young Jewish men, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah, had had no hope whatsoever of obtaining any human deliverance.

But once again Azariah alone will be the one to proclaim this (“Then Azariah stood still and there in the fire he prayed aloud”) (Daniel 3:32-33):

 

‘You have delivered us into the power of our enemies, of a lawless people, the worst of the godless, of an unjust king, the worst in the whole world; today we dare not even open our mouths, shame and dishonour are the lot of those who serve and worship You’.

 

Might Sirach 51 be an echo of this terrifying situation, when Jesus ben Sirach prays to God,

 

“You have redeemed me

 

[v. 3] from the fangs of those who would devour me, from the hands of those seeking my life

[v. 6] From the unclean tongue and the lying word –

The perjured tongue slandering me to the king.

….

[v. 7] They were surrounding me on every side, there was no one to support me;

I looked for someone to help – in vain”.

 

This would mean that Ezra had served as High Priest

 

The question has been greatly debated.

But there is a strong Jewish tradition in its favour:

 

Microsoft Word - jbq_413_6_ezracohen.doc

 

WAS EZRA A HIGH PRIEST?

 

REUVEN CHAIM (RUDOLPH) KLEIN

 

The books of Ezra and Nehemiah detail the return of the Jewish exiles from Babylon.

 

These books feature Ezra the Scribe as a religious leader of the fledging Jewish community in Jerusalem. He is introduced in the Tanakh with the following genealogical lineage: Now after these things, in the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, Ezra the son of Seraiah, the son of Azariah, the son of Hilkiah, the son of Shallum, the son of Zadok, the son of Ahitub, the son of Amariah, the son of Azariah, the son of Meraioth, the son of Zerahiah, the son of Uzzi, the son of Bukki, the son of Abishua, the son of Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the chief priest . . . (Ezra 7:1-5). This passage traces Ezra’s descent all the way back to Aaron, the first high priest (kohen gadol). Nonetheless, rabbinic tradition teaches that Ezra himself was not a high priest. Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 list all those exiles who returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel. Ezra’s name is conspicuously absent from this list because he only returned to Jerusalem later, in the seventh year of King Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:7-8) … one year after the Holy Temple had been rebuilt.

 

TB Megillah 16b notes Ezra’s absence during the early days of the restored Temple and asks why he did not leave Babylon earlier. The Talmud then explains that Ezra did not want to leave Babylon while his teacher, Baruch ben Neriah, was still alive; he therefore had to wait until Baruch’s death before leaving for Jerusalem. The Midrash adds the following to this talmudic discussion: The Temple was actually consecrated because Ezra did not arrive at the time, for had Ezra arrived then, Satan would have filed accusations against the Jews, arguing that Ezra would better serve as high priest than Jeshua ben Jehozadak. This is because even though Jeshua ben Jehozadak would have been a high priest son of a high priest, Ezra was more righteous than he (Song of Songs Rabbah 5:2).  ….

 

This discussion clearly establishes the classic rabbinic position that it was not Ezra but his brother’s son Jeshua who served as high priest (see I Chron. 5:40, which states that Jehozadak was a son of Seraiah, Ezra's father). This is also implied in the list of high priests in Nehemiah 12:10-11, all of whom were lineal male descendants of Jeshua ben Jehozadak. However, when tracing the transmission of the Masorah (chain of tradition), Maimonides (Rambam) mentions the rabbinical court of Ezra, known as the “Men of the Great Assembly” ... and notes that the last of these sages was Simeon the Just, whom he describes as the high priest some time after Ezra. ….

 

This seems to imply that Maimonides understood Ezra to have been a high priest. ….

 

Rabbi Menahem Meiri (1249-c. 1316) echoes the words of Maimonides and adds that Ezra was the first high priest of the Second Temple. …. Thus, Maimonides and Meiri assume that Ezra had indeed served as high priest. In fact, Rabbi Hayyim Yosef David Azulai (Hida; 1724-1806) relates that he found a manuscript of Maimonides to that effect. In this manuscript, Maimonides observes that he compared his Torah text with an ancient Torah scroll in France written by Ezra the high priest. ….

 

Azulai infers that Maimonides believed that Ezra was indeed a high priest, in consonance with his opinion above. Elsewhere, Azulai questions the position of Maimonides in light of the aforementioned midrash which states that Jeshua, not Ezra, was the high priest. ….

 

Rabbi Ya’akov Emden (Yavetz; 1697-1776) writes that Maimonides’ source is Tractate Parah (3:5) of the Mishnah … which records all historical instances of preparing a red heifer (parah adumah) for use in purification: Who prepared them? Moses did so first; Ezra, the second; and after Ezra five more were prepared according to Rabbi Meir. The Sages say that seven more were done from Ezra’s time onward. Who prepared them? Simeon the Just and Johanan the high priest each prepared two. Elyehoenai ben Hakkuf, Hanamel the Egyptian, and Yishmael ben Piavi each did one.

 

By mentioning Ezra in conjunction with the other high priests who prepared red heifers (Emden reasons), the Mishnah seems to imply that Ezra, too, was a high priest. This idea gains support from the view that the red heifer might only be prepared by the high priest (see Parah 4:1). ….

[End of quotes]

 

I agree with those Jewish legends saying that Ezra was the high priest.

 

He, the Azariah of the Book of Daniel, was the same as the high priest, Jesus (and was also Jesus, the author of the Book of Sirach), the man who was a brand plucked out of the fire – the Fiery Furnace of King Nebuchednezzar!