I have to agree with what you said. Plus Vintage Jesus is a really good book. I’m reading through it now. Love it!

I admit, Driscoll’s pretty off on this one. The wine at the base of the cross was actually more like a Gatorade cooler on the sidelines of a football game.

This comes out of John 19 for those who haven’t turned to the source yet (which I suggest you do first) but have already started commenting, which states in v. 29: “A jar full of sour wine stood there.”

It was typical for jars of wine to be at crucifixion sites for soldiers to drink from while they were lifting up crosses, nailing people down, and waiting out their deaths. I doubt they would have dipped a toilet sponge in their own water…

I don’t think I need to comment on the false conclusion made by this interpretation, that’s already been thoroughly covered.

I would like to say, however, if this is your first exposure to Mark Driscoll, you should check out some of his other sermons, and especially, his books (I highly suggest Vintage Jesus). I would not ignore him or completely ignore him. He has some amazing, spot-on teaching. I’m not saying these justify this clip, or many of his stretched exegesis sermons, but I would hope all of you would do some more research before you completely discredit him. He is a constantly growing pastor as Ron said. He started out with the people who became Emergent Village, and is now far from that organization and even explains his problems with that in his sermons about the Emergent Church and his book Confessions of a Reformission Pastor.

Do I always agree with Driscoll? No. But I do have a level of respect for him.

Also, Chandler is very much a part of the Acts29 Network and The Resurgence (both Driscoll-founded organizations), so that reference is an ironic one.

I just think we should be careful when approaching national pastors. It’s easy for us to see the aspects of Noble’s and Furtick’s respective… ministries… because their communities are close to ours. When it comes to people like Driscoll or Warren, I think we should dig a little deeper than one sermon or a few twitters (tweets… whatever).

I’m not defending either of them, I’m just saying PP readers should dig and form opinions of your own, not based on 2nd-hand tweets or 3 minute videos. I think the James’ might agree…

First, a compliment. MD was announcing the beginning of what will likely be a three-year preaching series on Luke. There’s a model to emulate. Well done, Pastor Driscoll.

Second, the sponge story was at the end of the sermon as an example of something new he learned about Jesus on a recent trip to the Holy Land. I had assumed he got the information from a book, but, no, he got it from a tour guide. Kind of hard to check that one out, isn’t it? That also makes it even more tenuous as a source for a sermon.

Finally, he did use the sponge lesson to reinterpret Christ’s work on the cross. Look at his closing prayer:

And God, we come in some ways today, seeing our life as a sponge on the end of a stick, shoved into the mouth of the savior. And with those lips, we hear him say, “It is finished.”

Jesus’ last words now come stained with human faeces. How could that not change how we understand the crucifixion?

1) The Chandler clip is fairly well known. Driscoll’s just seemed similar in approach (stick, rose/sponge). It seemed like a fun connection to me. If you don’t see it, don’t worry. Not a biggie.

2) I was giving your man an attaboy. MD didn’t say he got this in a vision from God. That’s to his credit.

3) Historical facts let us understand the context of some aspects of the Bible, but they aren’t necessary and should always be secondary. MD’s lesson here falls apart without his textbooks, so it should be rejected on its face. He should be able to justify his sponge theory from Scripture alone if he wants to preach on it. I don’t see that Driscoll can do that. Do you?

Matthew 27:45-48, cited in the previous comment, looks like a simple refutation of MD’s claim. The soldier went and filled the sponge with vinegar for Jesus to drink. In Driscoll’s theory, the sponge would have already been infused with traces of vinegar from the disinfecting. There also wouldn’t have been enough vinegar to expect that someone would drink from it.

As Tommy, Rob and others have argued, there’s enough meaning in the Gospel accounts to keep us sufficiently informed about the crucifixion. We don’t need Driscoll to add to it.

Luke 23:35-36
35The people stood watching, and the rulers even sneered at him. They said, “He saved others; let him save himself if he is the Christ of God, the Chosen One.”
36The soldiers also came up and mocked him. They offered him wine vinegar 37and said, “If you are the king of the Jews, save yourself.”

Matt 27:45-48
45From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land. 46About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?”—which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
47When some of those standing there heard this, they said, “He’s calling Elijah.”
48Immediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink. 49The rest said, “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to save him.”

Psalm 69:21
They gave me poison for food,
and for my thirst they gave me sour wine to drink.

The video clip doesn’t provided enough context for Driscoll’s comments. Here’s the entire transcript from which the clip is taken http://cdn.marshillchurch.org/media/2009/09/20/20090920_eyewitness-to-jesus_english_transcript.pdf

Chandler: Jesus wants the rose.

Driscoll: Jesus wants the sponge.” – jduncan

Maybe I’m missing your argument, but I don’t think what you’re saying makes sense.

and I don’t think MD is saying: “Jesus wants the sponge.”

can you elaborate on this?

also

“When leaders get visions directly from God”

When did MD claim that is insight came from God, it seems he attributes it to a conversation with a historian or sorts. But again, I haven’t listened to the whole message.

and

“Besides the error of interpretation, what is Driscoll doing preaching from Roman history books? Are the Gospel accounts insufficient? Did the writers forget to tell us such a significant detail?”

Would you say that we overstep our bounds when we teach the Bible along with historical facts? What would you say is acceptable to use other than the bible to help explain/teach?

and

TommyF

“his inability and lack of appreciation for the crucifixion texts as they stand – without his embellishments. In light of his low view of scripture, his view of God is irrelevant”

These are pretty bold statements against a man that you haven’t heard. I wouldn’t consider his view of scripture low, for many reasons, one being that he holds a very high view of scripture, blatantly. That’s a pretty large leap you’ve taken merely by this statement,which, in my opinion, does not discredit/enhance/change Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.

It seems you can take or leave what MD says and it doesn’t seem to affect my view of the cross and sacrifice. Am I wrong in this?

Chandler did it right.

Why invent new ways of explaining things and new stories?? Let’s just be faithful to the ones that we’ve already got. I mean it is the perfect, inerrant, infallible word of God isn’t it??

By the way Duncan…what was with the Chandler comparison? Do you agree or disagree with what he said??

I’ve heard of MDriscoll, but have not heard him. I’ve made no judgments on the accuracy of his beliefs, just his inability and lack of appreciation for the crucifixion texts as they stand – without his embellishments. In light of his low view of scripture, his view of God is irrelevant, and are closely related anyway. In short, if this is the type of clip his church publishes on youtube for public consumption (as if this is the best portion of the sermon), then I will continue to ignore him. There are plenty of bad exegetes on the net, TV, etc. Why support one more?

JDuncan,

I think it might be better phrased: “he’s not sponge worthy.”