The Case for (Abandoning) Faith?

Often heard are the accounts of Philosophy Profs polling their freshman classes to see if there are any Christians in the mix. Perhaps he will then ridicule them by asking if there were any evidence which, once shown to be incontrovertible, might cause them to relinquish their faith. Most, wanting show fidelity to their convictions will answer no—proving them to be hopelessly unteachable and intractable. The better answer of course, the biblical answer is, "if Christ is not risen my faith is futile and I am most pitiable" (which is the thrust of 1 Corinthians 15:16-19). Well, it seems the Philosophy profs have been talking this over with the Archeology profs because here comes the latest wave of "incontrovertible evidence" against the resurrection.

You have doubtless already heard about the 'hard-hitting' documentary from producer James Cameron (documentary≠James Cameron?!) and director Simcha Jacobovici (who brought us the Discovery Channel's documentary on the ossuary of James). The yet-to-be-named drama unfolds around 10 ossuaries, dated to about 2000 years old, found in old Jerusalem with the names Jesua, son of Joseph, Mary, Mary, Mathew, Jofa and Judah, son of Jesua on them. And DNA proves that it is the historical Jesus! Well, not exactly. The producers of the show insist they have hard DNA evidence which establish familial relations, evidence that somehow made it to Hollywood before Harvard.

It is interesting to note that archaeologists in Jerusalem are rolling their eyes at the crypt craze just unleashed in the US, and even the British tabloid press has been rather lukewarm. After all, the same evidence was examined on the BBC eleven years ago. The findings in the cave, including the decipherment of the inscriptions, were first revealed about ten years ago by internationally renowned Israeli archeologist Professor Amos Kloner, who dismissed the hypothesis as conjecture pointing out that a poor family from Nazareth would be very unlikely to be buried in this style. These compelling New Testament names were so popular at the time of burial that the Israeli Antiquities Authority suggests that this cluster is only "coincidence", rather like finding Tom, Dick, and Harry together in an American family tomb of the 1940s. Cameron countered this assertion at his press conference by quipping: "If you found a John, a Paul and a George, you're not going to leap to any conclusions... unless you found a Ringo." The sticking point is whether this purported Mary Magdalene bone box is equivalent to finding a Ringo.

Let me just concur with these points raised by Andreas Köstenberger of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (cited from BaptistPress):

• The claim that Mary Magdalene's bones were found in one of the ossuaries on the basis that the name "Mariamne" (Mary) is inscribed on it is bogus; the connection drawn here is pulled completely out of thin air.
  
• The use of statistics and DNA "evidence" to support their case is highly suspect. Jesus, Joseph, and Mary were among the most popular names in first-century Palestine, and, of course, people buried in the same family tomb would for the most part be related. As Witherington rightly points out, we "would need an independent control sample from some member of Jesus' family to confirm that these were members of Jesus' family" -- but, of course, we have no such thing.
  
• All the earliest accounts of Jesus' death and burial indicate that Jesus' body could not be found and had not been moved. There is no ancient evidence whatsoever for Jesus' family tomb.
  
• Why would this family tomb have been in Jerusalem? Jesus was born in Bethlehem and grew up in Nazareth.
  
• There is no historical evidence for Jesus having a son named Jude. There also is no credible historical evidence that Jesus was married, to Mary Magdalene or anyone else (see the first point above).
  
• If Jesus died and a year later his bones were transferred to an ossuary, and this ossuary was placed in a Jerusalem family tomb, this would mean that all the early Christian martyrs, including the apostles, knowingly died for a fraudulent religion. That is highly implausible.
  

Köstenberger continues, "The problem with Jacobovici's evidence, however, is that he is connecting the dots far too quickly to arrive at his desired conclusion. Surely it will take better evidence to overturn the well-attested fact of Jesus' resurrection."

As with the Last Temptation of Christ, The Search for the Historical Jesus and The DaVinci Code this too shall pass.

Christian Use of Celebratory Beverage

I registered this blog space about 4-5 months ago as I was preparing a sermon from 1 Timothy regarding the qualifications for a pastor. In the sermon I looked at the fact that a pastor (and any other Christain, for that matter) can drink celebratory beverage, given a few provisos. The key one being that he have a ready defence for his conduct so that he might train a weaker brother up, according to scriptures, so that he might enjoy or refrain out of an informed choice. A few dear brothers and I were already meeting a couple of times a month to share in each others lives, ramble on about theology, and enjoy a couple of beers--we have since dubbed the meetings Thirsty Theologians. Given this exposure, I thought it good to have a ready resource to which I might point an objecting brother. I pray this might serve that purpose, as well as serving as a testing grounds on which to better deveolp my biblical understanding (in this and many other regards). I don't pretend to have all the answers, please interact with both corrective and affirmative comments. So that is my intent here, let's begin an exploration of the Christian use of celebratory beverage.

Some are already saying, a ha! He can't even bring himself to say "alcoholic" drink, using the euphemism "celebratory beverage" instead. While it is true, the negative connotations of the terms "alcoholic" or "intoxicating" are part of the reason I choose to use the term celebratory beverage, the better reason is that this describes the proper use for such beverages by the believer, to celebrate the goodness of God and His care for His creatures. I also like this term instead of "wine" because it encompasses a broader range of beverages, consider Deuteronomy 14:26 where a celebratory tithe is called for by God, and this tithe includes wine or strong drink or whatever your heart desires. To me this seems to include a great range of acceptable celebratory beverages. Ken Gentry put it quite well when he said that the world drinks to forget, while the Christian drinks in remembrance, or celebration.

Before I even begin my apologetic, let me say that an excellent book examining the exegetical and theological issues surrounding the use of celebratory beverage is God Gave Wine by Kenneth L. Gentry, published by Oakdown. Though less scholarly, another very insightful book which deals in a sublimely winsome manner with the history of celebratory beverage in the church is Drinking with Calvin and Luther by Jim West, also from Oakdown. I will try to repeat here as little of their evidences as possible (no need to reinvent the wheel) but will instead try to bring some fresh ideas to a discussion already well-developed.

Let me also cast aside a few weights and entanglements. I do not accept the error that drinking celebratory beverage is a sin, you will not find its prohibition in scripture. Though there are clear warnings about the misuse, and outright declarations of drunkenness as sin, there is no word of prohibition to be found for the average believer (I may later discuss the commands to Lemmuel, Nazarites, Rechabites, and the Levites while in the temple).

I do not accept critiques which proceed from an extra-biblical requirement for righteous living. One may protest that this type of critique is strongest one wielded by the most educated opponents, and cannot be dismissed out of hand. I admit that exceptional scholars have found much evidence today's wine is a different beast from that of the first century. They show from ancient Greek writers and from rabbinical tradition (as recorded in the Talmud) that at the time of Christ some groups drank only watered wine. I admit it, but how does that inform our Christian liberty? Did Jesus ever acquiesce to the extra-biblical requirements of the Pharisees (the writers of the Talmud). Since when do the dietary habits of the heathen inform Christian living? If Scripture really is sufficient to inform godliness, and if scripture says nothing of watering wine (despite hundreds of other, seemingly esoteric commands to Israel), then why would a sincere bible student accept these objections? The only reference I have found to watered wine is in Isaiah 1:22 as a result of its scarcity due to God's displeasure with Jerusalem.

There is one other related objection that insists that the methods of production make even the unwatered wine different today from the first century. Let me just say briefly that the primary differences are that in modern production, wild yeasts are killed and cultured yeasts are added to better control uniformity in taste from batch to batch. Other than that the chemical process is identical, and the end product has no greater alcohol content today than that of yesteryear.

At the other extreme, I deny the error that says drinking wine is required, even for the Supper. Just because a man is at liberty to drink, and realizes that it is no sin to do so, he is not required to exercise that liberty (making it another form of bondage). It is a noble thing to build hedges around the law to keep yourself from becoming entangled with sin, it is only legalism when you force others to remain behind your hedge as well! I may feel that it is better to match the sign Christ used at the first Supper by using wine and unleavened bread, even as part of a Passover feast, but there is nothing in the institution of the supper that insists on these elements. It is too far off-topic to chase this rabbit now but I believe Jesus was saying that anytime the church gathers for a meal, seeing the bread and drink (the most basic elements of a meal), they should remember His sacrifice for them and the grace of the new covenant.

My basic positive argument is that scripture frequently uses the provision of wine as a sign of God's blessing, and its absence as a sign of cursing. I will likely do a follow-on to this post listing the many instances where wine is proof of the approval of God.

Jesus drank wine. He came eating and drinking and was accused of being a glutton and a drunkard—it is irrational to accuse a man who doesn't drink of being a drunkard. He told His disciples that He would not drink wine, "the fruit of the vine", again until He drank it afresh in heaven. Wine in heaven? Yes, read Isaiah 25:6 where the wedding feast of the Lamb is described and see that "a feast of wines on the lees" is a prominent feature: that's a superlative talking of a feast of mature and rich wines.

To be continued…