8 Replies to “Filfthy Roman Sponge”

  1. Wow, never heard that one before. Makes sense thought…
    I always wondered why they were mocking him and offering him a drink at the same time! I’d figured just so his body would last a bit longer…

    That’s some pretty crazy love from Jesus right there.

  4. I fear it may just be another example of Driscoll’s exegetical laziness. That we have never heard this before ought to provoke us to proceed with caution.

    1. The commentators I have read suggest that the wine vinegar was a common drink of the soldiers. It makes sense for it to be on hand.

    2. Sponges had many uses in the ancient world. Just because they were used to clean backsides doesn’t mean this sponge was one of them.

    3. Likewise the use of the stick in the Gospels doesn’t automatically mean it’s the same kind of stick used on the loo. Jesus was raised up on the cross, hands nailed. They had to use something.

    4. For the significance of the wine, have a peep at
    Ps 69.21. Jesus is being identified with the one being scorned in the Psalm.

    What Driscoll is doing here is explaining what is ‘possible’ as opposed to what is ‘probable’. My worry is that such an explination is selected for it’s impact rather than it’s accuracy. That’s not a great method. So powerful yes, accurate, maybe not.

    So we can add this to the growing (and alarming) list of sloppy exegetical moves from Pastor Mark. Let’s learn from his passion and presentation, but let’s keep working on the text.

  5. Hey Marty. Appreciate your insights and Wise caution. Good point about probable vs possible. It’s easy to get caught up with passion and presentation.

    Thanks for the encouragement to work hard at the text.

    Hope you’re well.

  6. Thanks Marty.

    What do we make of the heavy focus on the physical sufferings of Christ? It seems strange to me that the gospel writers glaze over these in a very matter of fact way and we want to linger here as though the power is in his physical sufferings. Apart from 1 Peter 3:18 which mentions that Christ suffered for sin, once for all, the emphasis of the NT seems to be that Christ died for sins. What took place at the cross, was brutal! But what was remarkable that in the cross Jesus was forsaken (Mark), he made forgiveness possible and identified with suffering servant of Isaiah (Luke) and he completed the work of his Father (John).

    On the other hand, perhaps, the story has become so un-shocking that we need to keep preaching the shocking nature of his death? But even as i say that i want the greatest shock for me is that God would forsake his own Son.

  7. Hi Sam,

    I remember this discussion happening when the Passion of the Christ was released. Evangelicals were wary that Mel Gibson’s movie made much of the physical aspect of the cross while we have always focused on the relational and forensic aspects.

    However, Phil 2 seems to suggest that there is some significance attached to the nature of Jesus’ death by crucifixion…”even death on a cross!” I’ve always had trouble putting my finger on exactly what this significance is, and why it seems to matter that it was this kind of death as opposed to just a quiet passing on a peaceful bed. The context of Phil 2 would suggest that it emphasises his servanthood, but servanthood could have been shown in any number of ways.

    I would venture that the bloodshed is significant (linking in with OT sacrifice), and I suspet that the human compliance in Jesus death is somehow important (why does Peter mention it in Acts 2.23?). Deut 21.23 would have to factor in there somewhere too. I know throughout Church History a number of options have been put forward as to why the particular form (ie crucifixion) of Jesus’ death is important, but none I have heard have been particularly convincing.

Comments are closed.