Jesus' Wife? Really?

"Jesus was married. None. There is nothing about Jesus being married in the canonical gospels, in apocryphal gospels, in the church fathers, or anywhere else. Even if this new gospel claims that Jesus was married, it is out of step with all the other credible historical evidence we have about his life." ~ "The Far Less Sensational Truth about Jesus' 'Wife'" Michael J. Kruger, Professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, NC

I am sure many of you have read the recent articles that have been entitled things like "Jesus said, 'My wife'" or "A Faded Piece of Papyrus Refers to Jesus' Wife." Somehow discoveries like this seem to get a lot of media hype. I suppose it is because the media cannot get enough alternative versions of Jesus' life and love to give them historical value equal to the NT Gospels. (I have written about this type of discovery and media reaction here.)

Below I am going to give you some resources that go into much more depth than I do, but here are a few things to remember. First, this fragment is from the fourth century AD (Update: recent studies push it back to the eighth or ninth century AD). That means it was written about 300 (Update: 700-800) years after Jesus incarnation, death, resurrection, and ascension. Even if this fragment were to be authenticated, it was written way too late to take seriously. Even Karen King, the scholar who revealed the fragment, gives this caution. Furthermore, we have no way to identify the genre of literature from which this fragment came. We have no idea whether the original author was even claiming to record history. Given its date and the lack of information about its genre, giving this fragment historical weight is somewhat analogous to a historian fifteen-hundred years from now discovering fragments of "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" and publishing a paper entitled "Ancient US President Lincoln May Have Slayed More Than Just Slavery," even though all historical evidence points to the contrary. There is no reason to give credence to this fragment when the full NT Gospels (dated to the first century!) and all other earlier historical evidence all indicate the contrary.

If you want more detailed information, here are some resources:

• Quote from above: "The Far Less Sensational Truth about Jesus' 'Wife'," by Dr. Michael Kruger
• NT Manuscripts
• "Did Jesus have a wife?", RTB Kenneth Samples' Science News Flash
• "An Ancient Manuscript and Jesus’ Wife?", by Dr. Jeffery Gibbs

By His Grace,
Taylor

Offended by the Bible: Thoughts on Handling Offenses

Some of the non-Christians I meet these days complain to me that the Bible is offense to modern sensibilities. It contains things that seem to them to be offensive, primitive, and regressive, so they feel they are justified in ignoring it. One blogger, when commenting on a picture (see the image to the left) that he claims represents the Bible's view of slavery (I will get to that below), once said, "To me, it’s obvious that the bible is offensive.... If a simple graphic depicting what slavery means is offensive, then so is the concept and the book [the Bible] that condones it. Again and again and again, our morals do not come from the Bible. Thank God I'm an atheist!"

I could try to make a list of the things in the Bible that offend people today, but it is not necessary (you can just do a Google search for it and come up with lots of rants), it would be too long for my blog post, and the list changes all the time anyway. What I would like to do is suggest a few things a thinking person (believer or non) should do when they come across something in Scripture that appears to them to be offensive, primitive, regressive, unethical, etc.:

1. Please consider the possibility that the passage does not teach what you think it teaches. If you come across something in Scripture that seems to offend your modern sensibilities, could it be that you do not understand what it really teaches on the subject? Why automatically assume that your initial interpretation is exactly what the Bible teaches and therefore you know it is offense? If it were really that easy to interpret Scripture at every point, do you think there would be so many Christian denominations? So back up for a moment, calm down, and consider that it may not be teaching what you think it is teaching. Let me give you a biblical story that shows this can happen and a biblical example to illustrate.

First, read the story of the Road to Emmaus in Lk. 24:13-34. The men Jesus walked with on the road to Emmaus were some of His disciples. They had heard Him say time and time again that He came to save the world (not just Israel), that His kingdom was not of this world, and that the religious rulers had interpreted the role of the Messiah wrong. Yet, they still said, "But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel." They had read the OT through cultural blinders that held that Israel was the only chosen people of God, applied that to Jesus' work (even though He had taught them otherwise), and as a result they got it wrong. They needed to step back and consider the possibility that they the OT did not teach what they thought it taught. That is why, in v. 27, the text says, "And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself." He had to show them what the OT actually taught. It can happen to anyone, so consider that maybe you are interpreting it wrong.

Second, let's consider a biblical example of this. Think about the book of Genesis and the depiction of marriage and inheritance practices described there. If we read it thinking that the descriptions are biblical prescriptions, we are going to be offended. For example, the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) practiced polygamy. Someone who does not take a moment to consider that the Bible may not be teaching what they think it is teaching, might look at this and point out how offense their marriage practices were. But, if they took some time to investigate, they would find the Bible is not at all teaching what they think it is teaching. A good place to start is Robert Alter's The Art of Biblical Narrative. Now, Alter is not a Christian (he is a Jew) and if you read my review of this book, you will see there are a lot of things I do not like about it. However, he does have some helpful things to say about interpreting OT biblical narrative. When it comes to the "offensive" practices in Genesis, he is very helpful. Alter points out that there are two institutions described in Genesis which were universal in ancient near eastern (ANE) cultures: polygamy and primogeniture (the practice of giving the eldest son as inheritance everything in the family). He notes that when we read the text of Genesis, we see first that in every generation polygamy wrecks the family and reeks social, psychological, and relational havoc on everyone. Anyone who says they have read Genesis and thinks that polygamy is portrayed as a good thing or supported by the Bible, simply has not really read Genesis. When it comes to primogeniture, Alter points out that God counters culture and always favors the younger over the older (Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau, etc.). So, if you step back, calm down, consider the cultural setting of Genesis, and really pay attention to the details of the stories, you will see that Genesis is not promoting offensive marriage or inheritance practices but that it is actually subverting those ancient institutions at every point.

Please, take a moment to consider the possibility that the Bible is not teaching what you think it is teaching. Then do some research into whatever passage(s) that have offended you. Read a commentary or two. Ask someone to help you understand it. If you cannot find anyone else, ask me. I will be more than happy to attempt to answer your questions.

2. Please consider the possibility that you are misunderstanding what the Bible teaches because of your own cultural blinders. If we are honest with ourselves and others, we will admit that we are a product of our culture and that means there will be times when we will unwittingly (and wrongfully) imprint our cultural understanding of a practice, word, or philosophy back into a different culture. Let's take, for example, the subject of the quote from the atheist blogger I mentioned above. He is offended by what he thinks is the Bible condoning slavery. Why is that? It is because he is imprinting on first-century Greco-Roman culture a view of slavery that comes from our more recent new-world, pre-civil war, race-based experience of slavery. He sees Scriptures like Col. 3:22 that say, "Slaves, obey your earthly masters..." and what comes into his mind is a picture of an eighteenth-century Georgia plantation owner abusing his bought African slave. That, however, comes from not considering the possibility that his cultural blinders are affecting his view of the first-century practice of slavery. What he has not considered is that the "slavery" described in Scripture is nothing like the more recent pre-civil war, new-world, race-based slavery we think of today. His cultural blinders and assumptions are the source of his offense, not Scripture.

Murray J. Harris has written a book on the NT metaphor of what it means to be slave to Christ: Slave of Christ: A New Testament Metaphor for Total Devotion to Christ. In it, he spends several chapters examining the ancient practice of slavery and compares it to our more modern experience of slavery. He points out several things that show them to be very different:

• In first-century Greco-Roman slavery, slaves were not distinguishable by race, language, gender, clothing, or anything else. They were never segregated off from society in any way.
• In first-century Greco-Roman slavery, slaves were often more educated than their masters and many held high managerial positions in the household.
• In first-century Greco-Roman slavery, from a financial standpoint, slaves made the same wages as free laborers. They were not usually poor and often gained enough money to buy themselves out of slavery.
• In first-century Greco-Roman slavery, persons were not slaves for life. Most sold themselves into slavery to pay off a debt or gain a certain sum of money and worked their freedom after a set number of years.

This is in great contrast to our more modern experience with slavery. New-world, pre-civil war slavery was race-based and was perpetuated through the kidnapping, forced relocation, forced labor, and dehumanizing of African peoples, which is something the Bible categorically condemns (cf. Dt. 24:7; 1 Ti. 1:9-11).

Therefore, while early Christians like Paul discouraged the Greco-Roman form of slavery (cf. 1 Co. 7:21-24) and even worked on an individual basis to overcome it (cf. John Piper's article on Philemon), they did not feel they needed to lead a campaign to end it, for 1) they had no ability to do so since they did not live in a democratic society where social change was possible the "average joe" and 2) that form did not (at least most of the time) violate human rights as images of God. New-world Christians, however, who were consistent in their Scriptural beliefs and interpretation, did work to abolish the new-world, pre-civil war, race-based forms of slavery because they could not be squared with Scripture. (Yes, it is true that many people in the South did attempt to use the Bible to justify their subjugation of African slaves, but they were reading the Bible through their cultural blinders as well. It was an illegitimate twisting of Scripture. Such a twisting does not prove that Scripture is wrong, but only that the culturally blinded, sinful use by some Christians was/is wrong.) So, if you step back, calm down, and consider your cultural blinders may be obscuring the truth of Scripture, you might find it is not nearly as offensive as you first thought.

Please, be intellectually honest and consider that your cultural blinders mind be clouding your view of something in Scripture. Then do some research into whatever passage(s) that have offended you. Again, read a commentary or two. Again, ask someone to help you understand it. And again, if you cannot find anyone else, ask me. I will be more than happy to attempt to answer your questions.

3. Please consider that you may be offended by a biblical text because of an unexamined assumption of the superiority of your cultural moment. We in the modern, Western world often think that we are the apex of human achievement: scientifically, ethically, morally, etc. There is the unexamined assumption that because something offends our modern sensibilities, it is categorically wrong because our culture is obviously superior. However, consider that perhaps your cultural viewpoint is not objectively superior. Then think about how other cultures may read the same Bible passage you read and find it pleasing when you find it offensive or offensive when you find it pleasing. For example, consider what the Bible has to say about subjects of sex and forgiveness. In our modern, Western culture, what the Bible says about sex is seen as "obviously primitive," backwards, oppressive, and offensive, violating individual freedoms and "rights." Yet, modern, Western cultural loves what (they think) the Bible has to say about forgiveness. We love the idea of being able to be forgiven over and over again for the same sins. Now, transfer these two subjects into a modern, Middle-Eastern culture. The exact opposite responses will be given to each. What the Bible has to say about sex is pretty well accepted (though even it may not be strict enough), but what the Bible says about forgiving many times over or forgiving your enemies is seen as insane.

So, if you are offended by something the Bible says about a subject (and you have worked to get past the above two suggestions), I must ask: why should your cultural sensibilities trump everyone else's? Why should certain parts of the Bible (or the whole thing) be tossed because they offend your (unexamined) cultural assumptions? Think of how cultural assumptions change and you will see how improper this is. What we think of as "normal" today was considered taboo fifty years ago, and your great grandchildren will probably find absolutely embarrassing many of the things that you consider culturally acceptable today. So, again, why should your current cultural sensibilities trump all others?

Please, consider that you may be offended by a biblical text because of an unexamined assumption of the superiority of your culture, and then take some time to attempt to examine those assumptions. Perhaps you will find they are not as superior as you first assumed.

Whether you are a Christian or not, hopefully these suggestions will help you when you come across something in Scripture that seems to you to be offensive. It takes time and effort to do what I have suggested above, but it will be worth it. If you do not do it and simply toss out the Bible, you will be missing out on everything that Jesus has to offer, most importantly peace with God, forgiveness, salvation, eternal life, and freedom.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Mistakes, Second Chances, and Grace

"Perhaps one of the lessons is that we need Pauls who lead the army into battle. And, we need Barnabases who care for the wounded and shell shocked and get them back into the war." ~ The Christian Curmudgeon, "I Don't Believe in Second Chances"

In the article linked above, the Christian Curmudgeon talks about the grace of second (and third and fourth and fifth...) chances using the story of John Mark as an example. If you do not know what happened there, John Mark was a companion of Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary journey (Ac. 12:25). However, something happened (no one knows exactly what happened) and John Mark left prematurely (Ac. 13:48). When Paul and Barnabas were starting out their second missionary journey, Barnabas wanted to take John Mark but Paul would not allow it. Apparently John Mark's departure on the first missionary journey made Paul feel he was not suited for their work anymore. The disagreement was so sharp between the two of them that they split: Barnabas with John Mark and Paul with Silas (Ac. 15:36-40).

Now, think about that. Paul--the man who used to be Saul, persecuted Christians, and murdered who knows how many believers--would not extend grace to John Mark for his mistake (whatever it was). Paul--the man who championed absolutely free grace, wrote things like "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost" (1 Ti. 1:15), and gave us nearly half the NT--would not give John Mark a second chance. This would shock me, if I was not so much like Paul. Given Paul's background he should have been the first to give John Mark another chance. In fact, I can imagine Barnabas saying something like this to Paul: "Don't you remember that no one in the church would trust you until I took a chance on you? [Ac. 9:26-27] Don't you remember Who sought you out and stopped you on the road to Damascus when you were trying to kill us? [Ac. 9:1-19] Why won't you give John Mark another opportunity?" But, whatever Barnabas said obviously did not work... at least not at first.

When we read Paul's later letters, however, we realize that somewhere along the line he had a change of heart about John Mark. During his first imprisonment, perhaps as much as 15 years after he and Barnabas split, Paul wrote that he was sending John Mark to the Colossians and that they should welcome him (Col. 4:10), and he names John Mark as a fellow worker in his letter to Philemon (Phm. 24). Furthermore, during his second and last imprisonment in Rome, when Paul was writing his final words to his protege Timothy, he said, "Luke alone is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is very useful to me for ministry.... Do your best to come before winter..." (2 Ti. 4:11, 21) So many years after Barnabas tried to convince Paul that John Mark deserved another chance, Paul realized it and John Mark became a valuable companion, so valuable that when he was facing his impending martyrdom Paul wanted to see two men: Timothy and John Mark.

So what is the point of saying all this? Well, it is similar to what the Christian Curmudgeon wrote, which I quoted above. The Church needs Pauls because Pauls are willing to speak harshly when necessary in order to protect the sheep from wolves. However, the Church also desperately needs Barnabases to check the Pauls and make sure that the grace Christ gave us is given to others. I fear we have many more Pauls than Barnabases these days. I can say that because if I take an honest look at myself, I am more like Paul than Barnabas. I am too quick to say, "He is no longer useful." But, what if I acted like Barnabas? What if I remembered how much grace Jesus has given me? What if I remembered how many times I have returned to Him to repent of the same sins over and over again and that He has taken me back every single time? What if I gave second, third, fourth, fifth, and so on chances, just like Jesus has given me? Perhaps I would find someone like John Mark who would become one of the last men I would want to see before I died. Perhaps such a story of grace would be seen by the world and it would say, "Huh? What is going on there?"

Look, I know we need to protect the purity of the Church. I know we need to get the wolves out before they destroy the flock. Those of you who know me personally know how concerned I am with that. But, what would happen if someone who had the potential to be a wolf received grace from us instead of estrangement? Perhaps the Spirit would use that grace to bring them to repentance (cf. Ro. 2:4) and make them useful to us, just like John Mark became useful to Paul. The Spirit did it with me, so I am pretty sure He can do it with anyone else out there.

I pray daily for the grace and compassion of men like Barnabas. I am not there yet, but I am also thankful every day that God is not finished with me yet.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Joyce and Galarraga

"It brought out the best in everyone. Everyone involved handled themselves in the way we would hope they would, the way we hope we would. Except for us. Except for the fans and the media and the pundits. We freaked the hell out." ~ Will Leitch of New York Magazine

This is a key statement in Leitch's article about the botched call in the Tigers vs. Indians game that denied Armando Galarraga his perfect game and I agree with it. From Joyce's unsolicited admission of his missed call to his tearful apology to Galarraga to Galarraga bringing the lineup card to Joyce in the next game--all parties showed gentlemanly class. The fan buzz and media pieces all over the Internet showed something else and for the most part it was far from classy. It is sad when supposed sports experts say things like "Selig must overrule call" or fans say things like "coverup attitude of MLB regarding this is worthy of the Soviets or Communist China" and "Joyce deserves to be fired" while the parties actually involved act like perfect gentlemen. I will be the first to admit that I do not like umpires. I think they have too much power and not enough oversight which means there is abuse from time-to-time (this time it was not abuse, it was a mistake). I will also be the first to admit that I have done more than my share of yelling at umpires on the TV because of messed up calls but the above things are stepping over the line, even for me.

Where should baseball go from here? Well, contrary to all the fan suggestions, firing Joyce is completely out of the question. That simply shows a depraved need for "bloodlust and vengeance" and if I were Galarraga I would tell those fans in no uncertain terms that I would rather them go be fans of someone else. The thought that this "proves" that baseball "needs" instant replay for all plays is almost equally as bad. Baseball is a game that has always had the human element involved and the human element in calls is part of what makes baseball what it is. Besides, games are already 3 to 3.5 hours long and I would be willing to bet that the people who yell the loudest for instant replay would be the first to complain when the games get longer because of it. Should Bud Selig overturn the call? Absolutely not. Baseball has never retroactively overturned a call and as disappointing as this bad call was it is not a good place to start. If you start retroactively overturning calls then I am sure the Padres would like the chance to clench the NL West again that they were robbed of back in the 2007 tie-breaker game with the Rockies where Matt Holliday was called safe at home when he was really out (as the replay showed). As emotional and disappointing as this botched call was it is no reason to change over 100 years of history. What should MLB do? How about move on? Detroit has moved on saying they will not ask to have the called overturned and MLB is not going to do it anyway. The media and fans need to do the same.

You know what else very sad about this whole controversy? It shrouded the retirement of the one of the shining stars of the past 20 years of baseball, Ken Griffey Jr. A man who has had 13 all-star appearances, 1,836 RBI, and 630 home runs (fifth all time) deserves more than to be drowned out by media overreaction.

By His Grace,
Taylor