no bones about it (more thoughts on the supposed tomb of jesus)

A number of thoughts come to mind in considering the recent claims that Jesus’ bones have been found. These include the following:

(1) I think it is important not to overreact to every claim that runs contrary to the claims of Scripture. God is big enough to handle these attacks, and so we must be. We are told in one place not to be tossed around by every wind of doctrine; in other words, we shouldn’t be shifting gears every time a new idea comes down the proverbial pike. In a backwards kind of way, neither should we be sent into a frenzy whenever people say or do things with which we disagree. Reaction is good, but reactionary has become far too common among believers.

(2) I think it is important to maintain what I would call a “following spirit,” that is, an attitude in which we are open to what God has yet to teach us, individually and as a church. As mentioned above, I’m not talking about be foolish and open to every new thing that comes our way. I am saying, however, that those who believe in a ruling God should not be surprised to learn that he has more to teach us. Concerning the supposed “bones of Jesus,” I have good reasons to believe they are anything but undermining to the faith. At the same time, I need not fear learning whatever it is that they teach us. We have, in my opinion, fostered an attitude of fear and defensiveness among evangelicals, and a good chunk of this is due to a modernistic, “I have it figured out,” “all truth is equally accessible” approach to life. Cannot we remain theoretically open to whatever life brings us, trusting–truly trusting–that the faith will both survive and thrive because it originates in God? Again, I am not saying we should be naive or open to every crazy theory, but I do think we should exude–as we often do not–an attitude of “let the truth have its sway in our lives.”

(3) In dealing with areas of controversy, we have to ask whom it is we are supposedly protecting. Are we protecting ourselves in a legitimate way from harm and heresy? Or, are we protecting ourselves from the inconvenience of having to live in the real world and deal with the hard questions of life? We should defend the faith as Scripture maintains. We should defend the honor of God as God’s people always have. But we must not allow our egos and agendas and fears to dictate our approach in these matters. Sometimes, in the process of genuinely defending the truth we are apt to do to in untruthful ways. Just a thought.

(4) There is often an interesting contrast between modern and postmodern types when it comes to these matters. Moderns want to cross every “T” and dot every “i,” examining these matters in a rather line-by-line fashion. Postmoderns, at least some of them, tend to so under-react that they at least appear to minimize the importance of certain truths. Probably, the best thing to do is to combine the best of both worlds, both by avoiding an over-reactive mindset and by also treating important subjects with diligence.

(5) Even in a postmodern world, even in a world where the best features of postmodernity may be God-given vehicles to truth, there remains the need to be historical. Postmoderns are known for using such terms as incarnational, that is, treating life as a something to be lived out in the nitty-gritty of life. Well, at its center, this is what the gospel is all about: God entered this world, lived among us, died in our place, and conquered our greatest enemy. Long before there was anything called modernity to either embrace or react against, believers accepted that Jesus truly conquered the grave. Thus, the supposed find of “Jesus bones” is not a trivial matter. Again, I don’t think that we should be reactionary in dealing with this claim, and possibly the best thing we can do is patiently listen to whatever people are saying about it. Still, it is at least important for us to know that if Jesus has not been raised, we might as well give up our claims and drown our sorrows. Then again, if he is alive, we can bathe in such mysteries and celebrate.

(6) The resurrection, if it truly occurred, is not merely an historical anomaly but an actual intervention of God in the historical process. As such, we should never treat it merely as evidence (though it is that) but as the wonder that it is. Conquering our worst enemy is not some every day affair. What I’m saying is that we should spend at least as much time being awestruck and grateful for the resurrection as we do defending it before those who deny it.

(7) As a part of our response to this claim, we must indeed provide an answer for the hope that is in us. This will entail an vigorous intellectual interaction with the Jesus tomb proposal, but it must also include that very basic element, which is imbedded in that classic 1 Peter 3:15 text. What do we give an answer for? Intellectual precision? Historical accuracy? Epistemological superiority? Well, all of these are important. But at the core of our answers pertains to hope. Indeed, the very thing that is often denied (i.e., the resurrection) is actually the impetus of true hope. In our efforts to communicate the truth, let us not forget that our desire must be to defend hope. What this means, I think, is that rather than simply lambasting people with arguments and treating everyone like an enemy, we must–along side our legitimate arguments–seek to place hope front and center. We’re not merely fighting for a correct theory. We are also "fighting" for, yearning for, hope . . . both ours and that of our opponents.

(8) This recent claim also indicates that we must not be naive in our walk of faith. Is it truly a coincidence that these guys have decided to launch a discussion right before Easter? Are there any hidden motives here? Hmm. Could money and profit be a factor? Might there be a smidgen of rebellion among us all?

(9) Also, we must not forget the existential factor. That is, if Jesus truly conquered death, he is among us still. The early Christians banked on this fact: Jesus surprised them all by dying and then defeating death. In relating to others, therefore, we must not fail to recognize that while some may doubt or deny the resurrection, this does not affect the resurrected Jesus. I mean, if he’s alive, our denials of that fact do nothing. As believers and apologists I think we must come to grips with this reality. If the Lord is alive as we claim, he’s with us.

(10) In thinking through these theories, we must see them within the context of the early church. Whatever else we discover, this much is true. Jesus had been taken forcefully from among the early disciples, beaten brutally, and crucified. After untold horrors, he was taken down from the cross and placed in a borrowed tomb. At that point, the followers of Jesus were not looking for some new Jesus theory. They were not even waiting for a miracle. No, the things they had witnessed convinced them that hope was lost. Whatever they previously believed about Jesus, their hopes had been dashed, and they were in hiding, fearing for their lives. Then, something happened, something that transformed them and interjected courage into their souls. Indeed, they were not afraid to stand before the world and declare that Jesus had overcome the grave. So convinced were they of this that most of them went gave their lives defending and declaring the resurrection. Had they known of some grave of Jesus, had they believed that Jesus actually survived the cross, they would have abandoned their faith (Isn't that what they did when he was crucified?). Yet, the best any of Jesus’ opponents could do was claim that the body was stolen. Okay, who has it then? Where is it now located? Drop a name or two, will you? But there was no name dropping or tomb locating among those who followed the earthly Jesus, for they had apparently encountered him in the flesh, and literally hundreds of them were so utterly convinced that he was alive that they turned the world upside down. My point, simply, is that in trying to reconstruct what took place in ancient Palestine, you simply have to do justice to all of the facts and factors that are provided for us in the New Testament.

(11) One more thing: In dealing with these attacks, perhaps it would be helpful to treat them as God-given opportunities to share our faith and love, and to demonstrate–assuming that it’s the case!–that we are not members of the lunatic fringe. If someone wants to talk about Jesus, about the historical basis of the faith, about the resurrection and what it means (and why), this could be a providential opportunity not to cram the truth down their throats (which in my experience is often the typical evangelical response) but to calmly and lovingly and humbly venture with them into spiritual spaces, contemplating the possibilities and absorbing the hope of it all.