By Jerry Newcombe

From time to time I see advertisements for an audio series on the historicity of Jesus and the Gospels. One gets the impression from the ad that the speaker will be presenting historical information on Christianity, and I am sure he does. It is not clear, though, that the speaker on this series is a man who does not believe in Jesus any more. Dr. Bart Ehrman is an agnostic who lost his faith while studying at Princeton Theological Seminary. He’s entitled to his agnostic views, of course, but the ads for the audio series should not leave one with the impression that this is going to essentially promote Unbelief 101. Maybe the audio series doesn’t do that, but if his real views were known, they would.

For those who don’t know, Dr. Bart Ehrman is a former evangelical who went to Moody Bible Institute, then Wheaton College, and then Princeton Theological Seminary, where he began to have serious doubts that the Bible was indeed the Word of God. Today, he calls himself “a happy agnostic,” as he teaches religion at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Bart Erhman is an Apostle of Unbelief, and modern unbelievers, many with a nominal Christian background, eat him up. He says there is no evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.

No evidence? There would be no Christianity, no Christian church, no Christian movement, no New Testament if Jesus had not risen from the dead, bodily. Even the early disciples did not expect Him to rise. They were surprised by joy, to use C. S. Lewis’ phrase, out of context.

I’ve had the privilege of interviewing many scholars, including Dr. Edwin Yamauchi, professor or ancient history at Miami University (Ohio). He said there is no way, as an historian, to explain the birth and growth of the Christian movement, apart from the actual resurrection of Jesus from the dead. He said, in reference to Jesus dying a shameful death on the cross: “many Christians were embarrassed by this fact, because in art we don’t have Jesus represented on the Cross until the Byzantine Period. Now, how can you explain the expansion of this religion that exalted a Man who suffered the ignominious death, the worst possible death reserved for criminals and slaves, crucifixion, how can you explain the growth and expansion of this religion without the Resurrection? You cannot. Now, some scholars have tried to do that, but they do not offer any convincing explanation.”

The New Testament was sealed with the apostles’ blood. They put their money where their mouth is. The Greek word for “witness”—as in the idea of witnessing to the truth about Jesus is “martyro,” from whence we get the word martyr. Why? Because so many witnesses to Jesus, e.g., the apostles, were killed for testifying about what they themselves saw.

As Paul said, if Jesus were not raised from the dead—if His body did not come out of that tomb—then our faith is vain and we are most pitied of all men (1 Corinthians 15:19).

           
Instead, the Christian faith rests on a very secure foundation. How firm? So firm that the apostles—the ones Jesus picked to send out into all the world—sealed their testimony with their own blood. All but John (and Judas the traitor) died a martyr’s death. A terrific Bible scholar of our time is ancient historian, Dr. Paul Maier of Western Michigan University. I have had the privilege of interviewing him many times. Dr. Maier pointed out about the Resurrection in our award-winning television special, Who Is This Jesus:

Myths do not make martyrs, and if this story had been invented, they would not have gone to death for it. If Peter had invented the account, as he’s ready to be hoisted up on a cross in Rome, he would’ve blown the whistle and said, “Hold it! I’ll plea bargain with you. I’ll tell you how we did it if I can come off with my life.”

           
I also appreciate what Dr. Sam Lamerson of Knox Theological Seminary said about the resurrection of Jesus and about how eyewitnesses to the risen Jesus sealed their testimony in their blood (in contrast with the views of modern day skeptics):

Those people who died, they did so knowing that is was going to be painful, knowing that it was going to be embarrassing, knowing that it was going to be terror-filled, and yet they did it anyway as a direct result of the fact that they believed that Jesus Christ was God. And they lived in the first century, and we live in the twenty-first century. And it seems to me that it is the height of arrogance for us to say in the twenty-first century, “You, all you people who died, you were just foolish, you just didn’t know any better.  And, we scholars, we know a lot better than you do.”

Matthew knew what he had seen---Jesus risen from the dead. So did no-longer-doubting Thomas. Andrew could not deny what he saw with his own eyes, even upon pains of death. To think that each of these, but John, went to a martyr’s grave, is significant. And John was willing to go to a martyr’s grave.

Of course, it is chic these days for some modern scholars to reject the resurrection of Christ. Why do they do that? Because of their underlying presuppositions. They accuse us of bias, but in reality their biases are greater. They “know” the Resurrection could not have happened, because people don’t rise from the dead; therefore, Jesus did not rise from the dead. In other words, the disbelief stems from a pre-commitment to the idea that such a thing simply cannot happen. In this view, because physical resurrection from the dead is pre-judged as impossible, the physical resurrection of Christ could not have happened.

I have more to say about Bart Ehrman, modern day apostle of unbelief in my next posting.