timely post in light of recent claims to have discovered the tomb of Christ, complete with his bones, alongside the tomb of Mary Magdalene and their son.
it's also ironic that these discoveries were made post-Davinci code (no one would have payed attention to a claim to have found a tomb of a Jesus who was married and had a son before the movie) and that they were discovered during the filming of a documentary by the director of Titanic who was setting out to disprove the resurrection, and believes that Jesus was, in fact, married to MM and had a son...
I overheard someone in my office saying "Well, it doesn't really change who he was as a man." Almost as if they were forgiving his little indiscression of his union with MM and siring children. That's more insideous than those who take it as a "see, I told you so". I'd rather open attack than subversive "acceptivism" (look everyone, I made up a word)
swift... i've given it some thought after reading The Davinci Code (and later seeing the movie too) and asked myself what it would change for me if we all of a sudden found out that Jesus was married. Other than the fact that the Gospels don't account for this, I've come up with the conclusion that i don't think it would really change anything. I think we are afraid to embrace the full humanity that was Christ and it's easier for us to focus on his Divinity. Would it matter if he had been married? What do you think?
As far as him having children, this might confuse me a little more... i'm not sure about having a direct bloodline to Christ roaming about the earth here...
My biggest concern with the claim here (although if i'm honest, i'm about as concerned with this news as i was to hear that Anna Nicole Smith had died.) is that of the discovery of Christ's bones, which would obviously dismiss any possibility of a bodily resurrection. i'll take issue with that one.
My first reaction was "What the H, Aaron, that's damnable heresy!" But then I gave it some more thought and I think I see what you're saying - that it would not deminish your faith or understanding of his Person. There're a lot of directions I could go with this, but I'll try to give an organized answer. 1) I think the biggest problem is the spiritual union that happens with marriage. If we take the words seriously "the two shall become one flesh" then Christ would have (at the very barest, figuratively) changed in his singular humanity. And if the Church is any more than in meaningless symbolism “the Bride of Christ” then we would be serving a polygamist hypocrite on some level. 2) I don't object to this because of some Gnostic remnant view of the physical, but because the purity of Christ's discipline in abstinence from sin and physical intimacy would be marred by this. 3) If the Church deceived us in this – and it would be a blatant purposeful deception – then I cannot trust any aspect of her teaching or canonization of Scripture. That’s what infuriates me about this – it’s an attack on the integrity of the Church – and I don’t need to mean Uptown Baptist Church, the Catholic Church or even the Orthodox Church specifically – this is a teaching that has been held ecumenically, unanimously. No council addressed it (to the best of my knowledge) because it was so far from even being a question in the Church’s mind. I think it was C.S. Lewis who said, (and I paraphrase) “If I have to choose between Christ and logic, I’ll choose Christ.” In that vein, if I had to choose between the most seemingly undeniable scientific evidence of the marriage of Christ to any but the Church and the Church’s teaching on the matter I would choose the Church ten thousand times over.
swift... great points. i'll respond to them in the same order as you posted...
1) definitely good thoughts. i'm still someone who thinks initially of marriage outside of the spiritual implications and the "two shall become one" truth. maybe it's because i don't even really understand what that means. but your point is valid. i'd be interested in hearing phil's thoughts on this in light of a theology of marriage that i'm sure he's been imparted from Dan Allender...
2) i'm not sure i'd buy that Christ being married would mar "the purity of Christ's discipline in abstinence from sin and physical intimacy". your view of marriage is that it is a sacrament, right? how would this somehow create an imperfect Christ, or cause him to be in sin?
3) i agree with what you're saying. and i would have some huge questions about why the bible and our tradition had not made mention of his marriage, were it so. (again, we're talking completely hypothetical, right? i, in no way, think that he was married or really could have been given our understanding of him via the Bible and tradition)...
i'll stop there. good thoughts, swift... you've made me think. i'm glad we can dialogue about this because what i don't like is the talking evangelical heads on tv that are supposedly representing me. while i agree with the words that are coming out of their mouths, it's embarrasing how defensive, angry, and unraveled they come across in their unwillingness to at least have a conversation about it, yet hold their strong (and i believe true) position.
Aaron, I believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary as did the whole church up to and including Luther. While some may have held this because of some view of sex as base and sinful that was not the view of the Fathers to the best of my understanding. Her perpetual virginity makes sense because she was the Ark of God and this set her appart - holy Joseph did not dare to treat one touched by such grace in an ordinary manner. Not because the sacrament of marriage is anything but holy, but to be set appart. Why else do Christians abstain so that they can pray and fast except. So there's two parts to it A) a vessel set apart and B) an analogy of fasting or abstaining in order to prepare himself for Calvary. That's what I'm saying would be marred.
By the way, I've really been enjoying these conversations both here and on elnellis. I'm curious what the others have to say about this too. And I'm realising that I really should have talked with you more at Moody, Aaron.
1) you didn't miss much by not having these conversations while at moody. there was no real discussion to be had as our brains were all being formed into the same person. can you tell how i feel about my moody education? :) seriously though, these conversations are really a product of what i've been learning since my time at moody...
2) on the perpetual virginity of mary... i think we'll agree to disagree on this point until the time comes for that conversation to happen. i will look forward to it, and would rather it be over a pitcher than a blog. who knows? :)
Great back-and-forth Jeremy and Aaron! I’m a friend of Jeremy’s and I thoroughly enjoy this website and check it often.
I’m not sharpest crayon that got shoved down and lost in the couch, but I think it was Dostoyevsky who said “If I had to choose between Christ and truth, I would choose Christ.”
I recommend not trying to unpack this in the Blogosphere…My pastor explained it in a sermon a few weeks ago, but the gist of it kind of slips back and forth between fuzzy and blurry.
I didn’t really add anything to the conversation here—sorry. I mostly just really wanted to post something!
9 comments:
timely post in light of recent claims to have discovered the tomb of Christ, complete with his bones, alongside the tomb of Mary Magdalene and their son.
it's also ironic that these discoveries were made post-Davinci code (no one would have payed attention to a claim to have found a tomb of a Jesus who was married and had a son before the movie) and that they were discovered during the filming of a documentary by the director of Titanic who was setting out to disprove the resurrection, and believes that Jesus was, in fact, married to MM and had a son...
hmm...
I overheard someone in my office saying "Well, it doesn't really change who he was as a man." Almost as if they were forgiving his little indiscression of his union with MM and siring children. That's more insideous than those who take it as a "see, I told you so". I'd rather open attack than subversive "acceptivism" (look everyone, I made up a word)
swift... i've given it some thought after reading The Davinci Code (and later seeing the movie too) and asked myself what it would change for me if we all of a sudden found out that Jesus was married. Other than the fact that the Gospels don't account for this, I've come up with the conclusion that i don't think it would really change anything. I think we are afraid to embrace the full humanity that was Christ and it's easier for us to focus on his Divinity. Would it matter if he had been married? What do you think?
As far as him having children, this might confuse me a little more... i'm not sure about having a direct bloodline to Christ roaming about the earth here...
My biggest concern with the claim here (although if i'm honest, i'm about as concerned with this news as i was to hear that Anna Nicole Smith had died.) is that of the discovery of Christ's bones, which would obviously dismiss any possibility of a bodily resurrection. i'll take issue with that one.
My first reaction was "What the H, Aaron, that's damnable heresy!" But then I gave it some more thought and I think I see what you're saying - that it would not deminish your faith or understanding of his Person. There're a lot of directions I could go with this, but I'll try to give an organized answer.
1) I think the biggest problem is the spiritual union that happens with marriage. If we take the words seriously "the two shall become one flesh" then Christ would have (at the very barest, figuratively) changed in his singular humanity. And if the Church is any more than in meaningless symbolism “the Bride of Christ” then we would be serving a polygamist hypocrite on some level.
2) I don't object to this because of some Gnostic remnant view of the physical, but because the purity of Christ's discipline in abstinence from sin and physical intimacy would be marred by this.
3) If the Church deceived us in this – and it would be a blatant purposeful deception – then I cannot trust any aspect of her teaching or canonization of Scripture. That’s what infuriates me about this – it’s an attack on the integrity of the Church – and I don’t need to mean Uptown Baptist Church, the Catholic Church or even the Orthodox Church specifically – this is a teaching that has been held ecumenically, unanimously. No council addressed it (to the best of my knowledge) because it was so far from even being a question in the Church’s mind. I think it was C.S. Lewis who said, (and I paraphrase) “If I have to choose between Christ and logic, I’ll choose Christ.” In that vein, if I had to choose between the most seemingly undeniable scientific evidence of the marriage of Christ to any but the Church and the Church’s teaching on the matter I would choose the Church ten thousand times over.
swift... great points.
i'll respond to them in the same order as you posted...
1) definitely good thoughts. i'm still someone who thinks initially of marriage outside of the spiritual implications and the "two shall become one" truth. maybe it's because i don't even really understand what that means. but your point is valid. i'd be interested in hearing phil's thoughts on this in light of a theology of marriage that i'm sure he's been imparted from Dan Allender...
2) i'm not sure i'd buy that Christ being married would mar "the purity of Christ's discipline in abstinence from sin and physical intimacy". your view of marriage is that it is a sacrament, right? how would this somehow create an imperfect Christ, or cause him to be in sin?
3) i agree with what you're saying. and i would have some huge questions about why the bible and our tradition had not made mention of his marriage, were it so. (again, we're talking completely hypothetical, right? i, in no way, think that he was married or really could have been given our understanding of him via the Bible and tradition)...
i'll stop there.
good thoughts, swift... you've made me think. i'm glad we can dialogue about this because what i don't like is the talking evangelical heads on tv that are supposedly representing me. while i agree with the words that are coming out of their mouths, it's embarrasing how defensive, angry, and unraveled they come across in their unwillingness to at least have a conversation about it, yet hold their strong (and i believe true) position.
Aaron,
I believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary as did the whole church up to and including Luther. While some may have held this because of some view of sex as base and sinful that was not the view of the Fathers to the best of my understanding. Her perpetual virginity makes sense because she was the Ark of God and this set her appart - holy Joseph did not dare to treat one touched by such grace in an ordinary manner. Not because the sacrament of marriage is anything but holy, but to be set appart. Why else do Christians abstain so that they can pray and fast except. So there's two parts to it A) a vessel set apart and B) an analogy of fasting or abstaining in order to prepare himself for Calvary. That's what I'm saying would be marred.
By the way, I've really been enjoying these conversations both here and on elnellis. I'm curious what the others have to say about this too. And I'm realising that I really should have talked with you more at Moody, Aaron.
1) you didn't miss much by not having these conversations while at moody. there was no real discussion to be had as our brains were all being formed into the same person. can you tell how i feel about my moody education? :) seriously though, these conversations are really a product of what i've been learning since my time at moody...
2) on the perpetual virginity of mary... i think we'll agree to disagree on this point until the time comes for that conversation to happen. i will look forward to it, and would rather it be over a pitcher than a blog. who knows? :)
Great back-and-forth Jeremy and Aaron! I’m a friend of Jeremy’s and I thoroughly enjoy this website and check it often.
I’m not sharpest crayon that got shoved down and lost in the couch, but I think it was Dostoyevsky who said “If I had to choose between Christ and truth, I would choose Christ.”
I recommend not trying to unpack this in the Blogosphere…My pastor explained it in a sermon a few weeks ago, but the gist of it kind of slips back and forth between fuzzy and blurry.
I didn’t really add anything to the conversation here—sorry. I mostly just really wanted to post something!
Hi Chris. Thanks for the correction, I couldn't remember who it was at the time I was franticly writing my response.
Post a Comment