The Wine Vinegar, the Sponge, and the Stick

The Death of Jesus (Matthew 27:45-50; similarly reported in Mark 15):

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.” ⁵⁰And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.

Luke’s description of a similar moment just before the sixth hour (Luke 23:36-37):

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.”

John’s description of that moment described by Matthew and Mark (John 19:28-30):

²⁸Later, knowing that all was now completed, and so that the Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I am thirsty.”²⁹A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus’ lips. ³⁰When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

We know that the Gospels (the four biographical accounts of Jesus found in the New Testament) are very similar, but also very different, which strengthens their historical authenticity (because three of the five criteria of authenticity of historical documents are: the existence of multiple independent attestations, i.e., different sources that point to the same event (that’s one), the dissimilarity between them (that’s two, because it allows us a more complex picture of the event, not necessarily contradictory alternatives), and the similarity between them (that’s three).).  So while the account in John concerning the wine vinegar, the sponge, and the stick is very different (in that John relates it to the fulfilment of a prophecy which Jesus understood to be fulfilled by him, and that is why he asks for the drink), it does not disqualify the accounts of the other Gospels.  But anyway, this was just something I thought I’d mention in case it seemed like the different accounts are contradictory.

What I found incredible was what Mark Driscoll ‘discovered’ concerning this moment.  And I presume he is referring the the account that Luke gives, where the Roman soldiers give Jesus a drink from the sponge.  Luke is the only one out of the four who describes this moment in a somewhat negative tone.  The other accounts seem to present it as a positive moment of almost compassion for the onlookers of Jesus’ crucifixion.  But I only felt this way after listening to the talk.  I REALLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO LISTEN TO THE LAST SEVEN MINUTES WHERE DRISCOLL EXPLAINS THIS MOMENT.  Though it’s still worthwhile listening to the whole talk, especially if you’re someone sceptical of how the Gospels were written!

The talk is located at: http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/luke/eyewitness-to-jesus.  It’s the one taking up the screen space!

I’d very much love to hear what you think of it!  You might not agree with his understanding of that moment (and I have my doubts), but it really humbled me and reminded me of how sinful we are, but how patient and forgiving and all-together merciful God is…

Melissa del Carmen Rodriguez Gomez, aged 11

This is the lovely young lady from El Salvador, South America, that my Sunday school class and I have been sponsoring for a year or more. She is in Year 4 at school, loves sport, loves going to Bible class, and lives with her mother and two younger brothers. Sadly, Melissa has seen much death in her life. It is hard living in a community with very poor (and very few) medical facilities, poor hygiene and very few employment opportunities. Melissa occasionally has to work as a labourer to help her mum support the family, but she is probably one of the very few ‘lucky’ ones who don’t have to give up school to do this, thanks to Compassion Australia. Please pray for Melissa – that she will grow to mature and be a successful adult and that she will also grow in her knowledge of and love for the Lord, and that she will make Him Lord of her own life in every area.

All things glorious

I was watching a talk that Mark Driscoll was giving on the topic of ‘glory’ today while waiting for the train.

What was really interesting (not that the whole talk wasn’t, but just this first bit to get you enticed :P) was this: Mark Driscoll says that God is all-together glorious, and as his image bearers, we have an ‘insatiable appetite’ for that which is glorious.  We are compelled to, drawn to, captured by things that are glorious…and ultimately to the glorious Creator who created us to be drawn to Himself.  This explains why we love watching the sunset, the sunrise, the moment when the bride is ‘unveiled’ (or revealed)…they are glorious moments that tweak at our heart strings.  And they are glorious moments that point to the glorious eternity that the Glorious One will reveal to those who love Him.

(You can also view the talk–isn’t it amazing that we have these things called video podcasts?–at: http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/its-all-about-jesus/its-all-about-jesus-glory)

Power…who is to be entrusted with it?

Dear friends,

I’m so terribly sorry that I haven’t written anything here for a while!  And thanks Phil & Miriam, for bringing that to my attention and the timely spur 🙂  It has indeed been three weeks, and I should really be doing this regularly for it to become a habit.

Well, what I’m about is type up is something that I read last week for my Writing History subject.  It is most interesting…

To set the context, this is a transcription of a conversation between Jean-Pierre Barou, Michelle Perrot and Michel Foucault (all influential French philosophers…though I don’t really know who the first two are).  It’s from 1972 and they’re talking about this ‘device’ called ‘the Panopticon’, invented by a man named Jeremy Bentham, which is basically the way jails are run.  (You have an authority figure who sits in the centre of a circular room or tower, and around the circumference are the individual cell rooms.  The idea is that this system creates a phenomenon where the authority figure has ‘the eye of God’; he/she is able to see every move of the inmates, and what eventually happens, or as they hope to happen, is that the criminals become so overwhelmed by the authority figure’s ‘all-seeing’ power in ‘the gaze’ that they start to regulate themselves.  That is, they start to become their own overseer; each person starts exercising moral surveillance over, and against, himself!  It’s a powerful idea if you think about it!)

Okay, so at one point in the conversation, they start asking the question: Who is to be entrusted with this power?

PERROT: As one reads him [Bentham] one wonders who he is putting in the tower.  Is it the eye of God?  But God is hardly present in the text [Panopticon]; religion only plays a role of utility [this is an interesting point, I thought].  Then who is it?  In the last analysis one is forced to conclude that Bentham himself has no clear idea to whom power is to be entrusted.

FOUCAULT: He can’t entrust it to anyone person since no one can or may occupy the role that the King had in the old system, that is as the source of power and justice [this assumption is based on the belief that all kings and thus the monarchy system is corrupt].  It was implicit in the theory of monarchy that trust in the King was a necessity…Power, in his person, could only be good; a bad King was either an accident of history or a punishment by God, the absolutely good sovereign.  On the other hand, if power is arranged as a machine working by a complex system of cogs and gears, where it’s the place of a person which is determining, not his nature, no reliance can be placed on a single individual.  If the machine were such that someone could stand outside it and assume sole responsibility for managing it, power would be identified with that one man and we would be back with a monarchical type of power.  In the Panopticon each person, depending on his place, is watched by all or certain of the others.  You have an apparatus of total and circulating mistrust, because there is no absolute point.  The perfected form of surveillance consists in a summation of malveillance.

Sorry for the super long quote, but what I think is really fascinating is what Foucault sees as a need for, not only a king who cannot be corrupted, but also a third party, someone outside the system of power, to oversee the whole working of the system.  And you might be already anticipating what I’m about to say next, but isn’t it obvious?  Foucault is right – never in history has there been a king that has fulfilled such a role, and that’s why when he talks about the Panopticon reverting back to ‘a monarchical type of power’, he doesn’t mean it in a good sense.  At the same time, without an ‘absolute point’, ‘you have an apparatus of total and circulating mistrust’!

God must’ve known this because He provides the exact solution!  There is a king he has established, the Christ Jesus.  He came to earth not to be served but to serve.  After he paid for our rejection of God by dying on the cross, he rose from the death to show that He is indeed God’s Son, the Messiah, the anointed King, who is Lord of the world.  He is the ‘absolute point’ and at the same time, because He is also God, He is ‘that someone [who] could stand outside’.  So yes, Mr Foucault, ‘we would be back with a monarchical type of power’…but it’s not one to be disappointed in!

As it says in Isaiah chapter 42:

“Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him and he will bring justice to the nations.  He will not shout or cry out, or raise his voice in the streets.  A bruised reed he will not break, and a smouldering wick he will not snuff out.  In faithfulness he will bring forth justice; he will not falter or be discouraged till he establishes justice on earth.  In his law the islands will put their hope.  This is what God the LORD says—he who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and all that comes out of it, who gives breath to its people, and life to those who walk on it: I, the LORD, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles, to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.  I am the LORD; that is my name!  I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols.  See, the former things have taken place, and new things I declare; before they spring into being I announce them to you.”

Food for thought 🙂  I don’t know if you think such a person could possibly exist, or whether Jesus is in fact that person.  But whatever your thoughts, I’d like to hear them!  For me, I know that this King has been revealed in the person of Jesus, and it is indeed God’s intention for a just and benevolent ruler to be King.  And that person is in fact Him.  And He is going to restore the world under His kingship.  Where do you think you’ll stand when He comes to be King?  With Him or against Him?