# Driscoll and Exegesis in Luke



## Marrow Man

Has anyone seen this? I have never heard an explanation like this before (warning: slightly disturbing). Is he remotely correct on Jesus on the cross in Luke:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VmyRiBaegE]YouTube - Filthy Roman Sponge[/ame]


----------



## AThornquist

Whoa. I've never heard this before.


----------



## PresbyDane

I knew the fact that this is how the romans went to the bathroom, so that is a plain fact.

But that they would have carried that which they had used on the toilet with them out to a place of execution I am not nessecearily sure.

The fact is that that vinegar and what it was on the spunsh they offered Jesus was to numb and reduce pain.
(which seems strange when they have chosen such a painful way of execution)

But this would explain why when Jesus tasted it he refused to drink it.

I think he is streching his illustration a bit, but interesting point non the less.

So to sum up, he might be right!


----------



## OPC'n

I think that is all speculation and his thinking that "if Christ could forgive *that act *then He could forgive *anything*" is the (insert a word here) thing I've heard yet.


----------



## Jake

Well, my pastor said it was a painkiller of some sort. 

And of course it's referring to Ps 69:21


----------



## PresbyDane

Yes the stuff on the stick was a painkiller but that can still mean that they used the toilet spunsh to administer it


----------



## OPC'n

Why would they have bathrooms by the cross? Romans didn't have what we have now but I don't think they excreted just any place. Are you sure they didn't have designated places for going to the bathroom? I'll have to google this.


----------



## PresbyDane

Yes ofcourse they had designated places but as an extra effect of humiliating the people to be killed they could have brought one, since everybody would recognize it, as we would recognize toilet paper


----------



## the particular baptist

Im sorry, i cant get past the dog collar.


----------



## MW

I thought the Scripture made perfect sense without any of this extra biblical information. It seems to me that the Evangelist is conveying one thought and the expositor is conveying another.


----------



## AThornquist

He said if Christ could forgive us in _that moment_ after _that act_ He could forgive us of anything. In other words, it isn't just Jesus standing around and then someone sticking that filth into His face. It is Christ, bloodied and bruised, dirty and humiliated, given dishonor and disgust when it is already difficult to consider a worse circumstance. It was horrid insult added to injury. To think that with those same lips, with that taste and smell, He would still speak words of life . . . wow. I'm not sure in what sense that could possibly be the (whatever negative word) thing you've heard yet. I would say that I heartily agree with Driscoll. It speaks of the unfathomable grace of the King. That's not to say that I'm convinced that what Driscoll said is true. I'm simply saying that if it is true, you might as well keep Driscoll (and Jesus) in context when criticizing his sermon.


----------



## OPC'n

AThornquist said:


> He said if Christ could forgive us in _that moment_ after _that act_ He could forgive us of anything. In other words, it isn't just Jesus standing around and then someone sticking that filth into His face. It is Christ, bloodied and bruised, dirty and humiliated, given dishonor and disgust when it is already difficult to consider a worse circumstance. It was horrid insult added to injury. To think that with those same lips, with that taste and smell, He would still speak words of life . . . wow. I'm not sure in what sense that could possibly be the (whatever negative word) thing you've heard yet. I would say that I heartily agree with Driscoll. It speaks of the unfathomable grace of the King. That's not to say that I'm convinced that was Driscoll said is true. I'm simply saying that if it is true, you might as well keep Driscoll (and Jesus) in context when criticizing his sermon.



Well, first I don't think he has a leg to stand on so I'm not convinced that there was feces on it....Scripture doesn't tell us it did but does tell us what was on it. Why put the pain killer on it if they just wanted to insult Him? Why not just stick the sponge with feces in His face?? Why bother with the pain med solution? Also, I'm sure they did use sponges for other things. However, you think that a sponge with feces on it which was *put to his mouth* not *shoved into his mouth* like Driscoll said was the worst physical thing He endured? I would suspect the beating or the hanging on the cross would be more of an insult than a sponge with feces on it.


----------



## AThornquist

OPC'n said:


> However, you think that a sponge with feces on it which was *put to his mouth* not *shoved into his mouth* like Driscoll said was the worst physical thing He endured? I would suspect the beating or the hanging on the cross would be more of an insult than a sponge with feces on it.



Except that's not what I am saying, nor do I believe Driscoll would agree with that either. The torture and humiliation of Christ is not forgotten in considering the sponge. It is the very fact that Christ could suffer so much already and then be insulted by the sponge after all of it . . . and still not utter words of man's destruction. This isn't a one or the other situation here. All of Christ's sufferings are being considered but the final moment of disgust focused on, for that was the great moment when Christ said, "It is finished." And again, I'm not trying to give any credit to this sponge idea that Driscoll brought up. All I'm saying is that Driscoll's words shouldn't be used _un_fairly against him.


----------



## OPC'n

I think his words should be used against him since he doesn't have any Scriptural evidence to support his theory. It doesn't make any sense. If the object of their action was to humiliate Him by putting a sponge full of feces into His mouth, why bother with the pain med solution? Does that make any sense to you?


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace




----------



## AThornquist

I have said several times that I am not agreeing or supporting what he said about the sponge beings used in such a way.  And just so you know, one could easily twist your statement around and say, "Well after torturing Jesus so much and causing him pain, it seems awfully strange that they would give him something for the pain! They wanted to _kill_ him!"


----------



## historyb

I listened to Pastor Driscoll's first sermon on Luke, it was good. He gives a good outline and overview of the next 3 years, wish the Church were closer  Yes, sue me I like Pastor Mark Driscoll 

----------------

I read many post on many topics recently and I will say some here come across as critical of anyone, it does not bode well


----------



## OPC'n

AThornquist said:


> I have said several times that I am not agreeing or supporting what he said about the sponge beings used in such a way.  And just so you know, one could easily twist your statement around and say, "Well after torturing Jesus so much and causing him pain, it seems awfully strange that they would give him something for the pain! They wanted to _kill_ him!"



Matthew says that it was a bystander that ran and got the sponge to give to Christ but the other bystanders said "Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to save Him". So the bystander wasn't a Roman soldier who was the torturer and the others who did hate Him wanted the bystander to wait. Why have the bystander wait to give the sponge to Christ if all it was for was to insult Him? So this all makes sense and couldn't be twisted into the thought of "why give Him pain med after the the torture".....the two acts were obviously done by two different ppl with two different feelings towards Christ. The bystander had sympathy and wanted to give Christ pain meds and the others didn't and therefore didn't want Christ to have the pain med solution.


----------



## historyb

OPC'n said:


> I think his words should be used against him since he doesn't have any Scriptural evidence to support his theory. It doesn't make any sense. If the object of their action was to humiliate Him by putting a sponge full of feces into His mouth, why bother with the pain med solution? Does that make any sense to you?


It's make sense to me, why give something good to a condemned man. To them our Lord was nothing more than a jew someone to despise, why not give Him what they considered Him. A sponge of poop that was washed with vinegar, when I heard that it made it more real for me. My 5 cents (inflation  )


----------



## Marrow Man

Moderator Warning:

This thread is _*NOT*_ about Mark Driscoll. It is about his exegesis of this passage from Luke. Is he correct here? Does he have exegetical support? Please comment on these issues alone and play nicely.

If this thread reverts to a Driscoll like/dislike competition, those posts will be deleted. If we cannot play nicely, the thread will be closed for good.


----------



## OPC'n

John 19:28 After this, Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said (to fulfill the Scripture), "I thirst." 29A jar full of sour wine stood there, so they put a sponge full of the sour wine on a hyssop branch and held it to his mouth. 30*When Jesus had received the sour wine*, he said, "It is finished," and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

I don't think Christ would have received a sponge full of feces. So his take on this text cannot be accurate.


----------



## kalawine

OPC'n said:


> John 19:28 After this, Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said (to fulfill the Scripture), "I thirst." 29A jar full of sour wine stood there, so they put a sponge full of the sour wine on a hyssop branch and held it to his mouth. 30*When Jesus had received the sour wine*, he said, "It is finished," and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
> 
> I don't think Christ would have received a sponge full of feces. So his take on this text cannot be accurate.



Right on Sarah! This pretty much nails it for me. The pastor went beyond the Scripture. I'm all for using our knowledge of history in a sermon but this goes over the line in my opinion. (Get's a little gross too... ick!)


----------



## TeachingTulip

OPC'n said:


> John 19:28 After this, Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said (to fulfill the Scripture), "I thirst." 29A jar full of sour wine stood there, so they put a sponge full of the sour wine on a hyssop branch and held it to his mouth. 30*When Jesus had received the sour wine*, he said, "It is finished," and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
> 
> I don't think Christ would have received a sponge full of feces. So his take on this text cannot be accurate.



Agreed . . .

The provision of the vinegar, was meant as a compassionate means to alleviate the thirst of the sufferers. Jesus first refused any mortal means to diminish His necessary sufferings, but when His sufferings were complete, He partook of this simply remedy for thirst.

The take on all this is disgusting and it does nothing but distract from Christ's *holy achievements* on the cross.

Unsaved, unregenerate, corrupted mankind . . .would rather discuss human excrement than Godly holiness and mercy, as exemplified on the cross. 

[Comments Removed]


----------



## Marrow Man

MODERATOR WARNING (again):

The previous warnings to abstain from comments about Driscoll were unheeded. Therefore, this thread shall now die a needless death.

In the future, please pay attention to Mod warnings. We will be glad to hand out infractions for such disregard in the future.


----------

