Jesus was married, had a son, and we have found his tomb....

Or at least Simcha Jacobivici would have us believe. Check out the article from the link below. I have posted this response on my church's blog.

Last night I went to bed and things were pretty normal. This morning I wake up and see on Good Morning America and read in the Toronto Star a project that claims to have found the family tomb of Jesus, along with bone boxes ("ossuaries") with inscriptions of names like, Jesus son of Joseph, Judah son of Jesus, Mariamne (a version of Mary), Mary, and Matthew. You can read the article at http://www.thestar.com/News/article/185708. If you haven't heard about this story, I'm sure you will before too long.

Now, I am always for Christians examining their faith and never burying their heads in the sand. If you saw the stories and had some doubts raised, that's not a bad thing. Just keep reading and doing some research and see where your conclusions go. I have done some initial thinking and recorded my thoughts below. Here are some of the facts of the story:

1. A tomb was found with certain inscriptions on bone boxes in the Talpiot neigbourhood of Jerusalem. It was uncovered in 1980 when building an apartment.

2. The bone boxes had inscriptions with biblical names (James, Joseph, Jesus, Mary, Mariamne, etc.)

3. DNA testing is being done to see if the genetic material found is related.

The producers of the documentary are claiming that this is evidence of this being Jesus' family tomb and showing that the biblical Jesus of Nazareth was married and had a son. A few things immediately undercut the evidence used to arrive at this conclusion.

First, Joseph's (Jesus' father by his marriage to Mary) family was from Bethlehem. (Remember them going to do a census that we read every Christmas?) Joseph then raised his family in Nazareth, about 80 miles from Jerusalem. If this tomb is the family tomb of Jesus, started by Joseph's burial, then Joseph was buried 80 miles from his family, alone, in a city his ancestors didn't come from. That's very strange and incredibly unlikely. Jesus' brother Joseph was martyred in Jerusalem, but, according to the early church historian Eusebius, his burial was not near the neighbourhood of Talpiot, where this tomb was discovered.

Second, the names found in the tomb were very prevalent. Joseph was the second most commonly recorded name, about 1/10 having this name. Greater than 1/5 were named Mary or Mariamne! (About 1/26 were named Jesus.) Having such names connected is no big surprise.

Third, these documentary makers are using DNA testing that was not available when the tomb was originally discovered. This DNA testing, I'm sure, will show a family relation between the people who were once buried in this tomb. What it cannot show, however, is the connection to the family of Jesus of Nazareth. For that to happen, there would need to be another sample confirmed from Jesus' family and then tested against the DNA found in the tomb. Nobody has that.

Fourth, if you read the Star article, the film maker, Simcha Jacobivici, says that "What convinced people in the New Testament of the resurrection was Jesus's appearances, not his disappearance from the tomb." This just isn't the whole truth. The earliest manuscripts of Mark, which was the earliest gospel written, end with the empty tomb. (If you read the NIV, like I do, you'll see that it says this after Mark 16:8.) An empty tomb caused all kinds of bewilderment for the earliest Christians, Romans and Jewish authorities. (You'll recall that the Roman guards and Chief Priests come up with the story to say that the disciples have stolen the body, once the tomb is empty [Matt. 28:13].) This doesn't mean that Jesus didn't appear, as Matthew, Luke, and John attest that he did. What it does mean is that Jesus' appearances only get taken seriously if there is already the knowledge that the tomb is empty and the ability to check to see if it is.

For a better explication of some of these arguments, see benwitherington.blogspot.com. It is obvious that Dr. Ben has shaped part of what I've written above.

Three things

First, please pray for me as I have some traveling and conferencing to do next weekend. I am a little torn by my nervousness and by my fear that it will snow and I will be unable to go.

Second, I have sold almost $200 worth on amazon.com. Who knew?

Third, I was reading an essay from my Harry Potter book that my brother Tim gave me for Christmas. It reminded me that living out some desires doesn't show freedom of action, but the deep bondage of our desires.

Scratching where I itch...

I am a Canadian who lives in the United States. I will someday, I greatly expect, move back to Canada to live the rest of my life. One thing I have come to appreciate about the United States, though, is the banking facilities. TOTALLY FREE CHECKING. Credit Unions that pay you money to sign up and offer savings accounts that actually register interest in dollars rather than nickels and dimes at the end of the month. So, let me just say that I can appreciate a government who starts asking questions of banks. Long live the authorities who think like the average joe!

Death to Resurrection

We should not see "the relationship between the actions we take and eventual outcomes [as one of] cause to effect but [as] death to resurrection" (Brad Kallenberg, Live to Tell, 111).

Having a Saviour raised from the dead means that facing dead ends can be His path to life. The task for the friend of God, of course, is to look back and read one's dead ends as ultimately having been paths to resurrection. Even tougher is to live in the dead ends with resurrection hope. Let the reader understand.

The Difficulty of Preaching from the Gospels

The hardest thing about preaching from the Gospels is that some already assume what the passage means. Sometimes it's the preacher (I have been guilty myself); sometimes it's the congregation.

How to Throw Barbs like Jesus

I suppose the title is a little misleading. I am not talking about Barbaras (e.g., Walters), Barbies (e.g., Barbie), or Barbaros (e.g., Barbaro). I am talking about subtle verbal jabs. So, here's how you do it. (This comes from an email exchange with my cousin Kirk.)

In Matthew 16:5-12, Jesus warns his disciples against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees, which he says is yeast. The point about yeast is that a little works through the whole. (In Luke, the Kingdom of God is like yeast worked into dough that feeds a lot of people. A little bit of good has a big effect--that's what the Kingdom of God is like.)

Here's the background: The Passover of the OT is commemorated by eating a lamb and unleavened bread. The are to cook the food with robes tucked in and staff in hand (Ex 12), eating bread that does not need to rise to show the haste of the exodus. The Festival of Unleavened Bread becomes one of three festivals the Israelites were to celebrate yearly [along with Firstfruits and Ingathering (Ex 23)]. Not cooking with yeast is not always forbidden--that's what makes it special during the festival and why those who have yeast need to get rid of it for the festival (otherwise they would never have had it).

Here's the burn: The Sads' and Phars' teaching is like yeast--inconsistent with celebrated traditions of the Israelites. They miss the point in a most fundamental way.

At least that's my opinion for now.

Quick Thoughts on Taxes

A few thoughts on taxes as I have just finished putting mine together. Jesus sometimes taught that you shouldn't pay taxes. At least, that is one of the charges brought against him by the chief priests and teachers of the law (Luke 23:2). Some object in saying that Jesus told us to "render to Caesar what is Caesar's" (Luke 20:20-26). This passage has loads of stuff happening under the surface as they are trying to trap Jesus and have him handed over to the governor. These tricksters are trying to get from Jesus' own mouth that they shouldn't pay taxes. Jesus, however, just says to give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. What you give to Caesar--and they are trying to have Jesus handed over to the governor and authority--under Caesar--is Caesar's, and not God's is Jesus' point. So, it seems that he teaches against taxes in some ways.

But Paul, affirming true authorities as God's servants, says that for this reason we pay taxes (Rom. 13:6). It is doubtful that Jesus, or Paul, could imagine a nation-state like the USA or Canada in which paying taxes to a government could go to support efforts they themselves would oppose. And if we aim to follow Paul, even while admitting the mingled nature of true authority (faithful and unfaithful all mixed together), then withholding taxes as a form of judgment against authority is not possible (Oliver O'Donovan's point). So, what is a Christian to do? Can a Christian admit a fallen authority and pay taxes without giving themselves to Caesar? I hope so, or we will have a lot of Christians in jail for tax evasion.