Remixing Jesus' Tomb?

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.

Remixing Money and Freedom

On Sunday, during second service, Pastor Gary mentioned that if we are giving our finances begrudgingly, then God does not want it. What God is after is a cheerful giver. (He's absolutely right--because he's more concerned with us than he is our money.) Whenever I heard this as a kid, however, I would wonder, "What about when I don't feel like giving, but know I should. Does this get me out of giving because I don't feel like it? If I'm not cheerful, do I get to keep my tithe?"

Of course, asking this question missed the entire point. The point in tithing is not the money, but the giver. When Israel was commanded to bring their first livestock and crops, it wasn't because God needed food, but because they needed God more than their firstborn livestock. In seeking to get out of giving, by asking the question I did, I was actually giving up the freedom to be cheerful. I wanted to get out of giving by being grumpy about giving, not realizing that I had sold my attitude for something pretty cheap.

So what does this mean? Obviously there are times we don't feel like giving. How, then, do we respond? I think that we should live into the direction of life that we want God to take us in. If we want our feelings to get us out of giving, then they will. If we want our giving to lead to the character of Christ, then it will. The question I should have asked as a kid wasn't, "Do I get to keep my tithe?", but "What kind of person do I want to become?"

Grace and peace!

Brother Aaron