I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (53 page)

C
ONTEXT
! C
ONTEXT
! C
ONTEXT
!

Let’s take a look at Crossan’s final comment about the trees in his yard moving five feet overnight. He says he wouldn’t “immediately presume a miracle.” Well, neither would we, because most events actually
do
have a natural explanation (which, incidentally, helps miracles stand out when they do occur). So it makes perfect sense to seek a natural explanation first.

But does that mean we should
never
conclude that any event (such as the trees moving) was a miracle? Crossan would not so conclude because of his theological presupposition that God does not “work that way.” But since that presupposition is unjustified—because God exists—what would be the right conclusion? It depends on the context of the event. Recall from chapter 5 that evidence must be interpreted in light of the context in which it is found.
²⁶

So let’s suppose that Crossan’s tree moving event occurred in the following context: Two hundred years in advance, someone claiming to be a prophet of God writes down a prediction that all of the trees in one area of Jerusalem would indeed move five feet one night during a particular year. Two hundred years later, a man arrives to tell the townspeople that the tree moving miracle will occur shortly. This man claims to be God, teaches profound truths, and performs many other unusual acts that appear to be miracles.

Then one morning numerous eyewitnesses claim that the trees in Crossan’s Jerusalem yard—including several deep-rooted, 100-foot oaks—actually moved five feet during the night, just as the God-man predicted. These eyewitnesses also say this is just one of more than thirty miracles performed by this God-man. They then suffer persecution and martyrdom for proclaiming these miracles and for refusing to recant their testimony. Opponents of the God-man don’t deny the evidence about the trees or the other miracles, but offer natural explanations that have numerous fatal flaws. Many years later, after all the eyewitnesses are dead, skeptics offer additional natural explanations that prove to be fatally flawed as well. In fact, for the next 1,900 years skeptics try to explain the event naturally, but no one can.

Question: Given that context, wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume that the movement of the trees was supernatural rather than natural in origin? Of course. The context makes all the difference.

This is the case we have with the Resurrection. It’s not just that we lack a natural explanation for the empty tomb. It’s that we have positive eyewitness and corroborating circumstantial evidence
for
the resurrection miracle. Here’s the context in which we must evaluate the evidence:

I. The Theistic Nature of This Universe Makes Miracles
Possible—
We live in a theistic universe where miracles are possible. (Indeed, the greatest miracle of all—creation of the universe out of nothing—has already occurred.) So God can use prophets to announce his messages and miracles to confirm them. That is, a miracle can be used to confirm the word of God, through a man of God, to the people of God.

II. Ancient Documents Say Miracles Are to Be
Expected
—We have Old Testament documents, written hundreds of years in advance, that predict that the Messiah—a man who would actually be God—would come, be killed at a specific time as a sacrifice for sinful humanity, and rise from the dead (more on this in the next chapter).

III. Historically Confirmed Eyewitness Documents Say Miracles Are
Actual
—There are 27 documents written by nine eyewitnesses or their contemporaries that describe numerous miraculous events. Many of these documents contain historically confirmed eyewitness testimony that goes back to the time of the events, and the evidence demonstrates that the narrative is not invented, embellished, or the product of deception. We know this because the New Testament documents meet all seven tests of historicity identified in chapter 9. The New Testament documents:

1. are early (most written 15-40 years later, well within two generations of the events)

2. contain eyewitness testimony

3. contain independent eyewitness testimony from multiple sources

4. are written by trustworthy people who taught and lived by the highest standard of ethics, and who died for their testimony

5. describe events, locations, and individuals corroborated by archaeology and other writers

6. describe some events that enemies tacitly admit are true (enemy attestation)

7. describe events and details that are embarrassing to the authors and even to Jesus himself

These historically confirmed eyewitness documents tell the following story:

1. At the time and place, and in the manner predicted by the Old Testament, Jesus arrives in Jerusalem and claims to be the Messiah. He teaches profound truths and, according to numerous independent eyewitnesses, performs thirty-five miracles (some on groups of people) and rises from the dead.

2. Once-cowardly and unbelieving eyewitnesses suddenly begin to boldly proclaim Jesus’ resurrection in the face of persecution and death. (Misguided people may die for a lie they think is true, but they will not die for a lie they know is a lie. The New Testament writers were in a position to know the real truth about the Resurrection.)

3. In the very city of Jesus’ death and tomb, a new movement (the church) is born and quickly spreads by peaceful means on the belief that Jesus has risen from the dead. (This is difficult to explain if there was no Resurrection. How could Christianity begin in a hostile city like Jerusalem if Jesus’ body was still in the tomb? The hostile religious and government authorities would have exposed Christianity as fraudulent by exposing the body.)

4. Thousands of Jerusalem Jews, including Pharisee priests, abandon five of their most treasured beliefs and practices and adopt strange new ones after converting to Christianity.

5. Saul, the most ardent enemy of the new church, is suddenly converted and becomes its most prolific proponent. He travels the ancient world to proclaim the Resurrection, suffering persecution and martyrdom. (If there was no Resurrection, then why did the greatest enemy of Christianity suddenly become its greatest leader? Why did he willingly suffer persecution and death?)

6. James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, suddenly becomes convinced that his brother is the Son of God, and then becomes the leader of the church in Jerusalem. He later suffers martyrdom at the hands of the high priest. (We all know that family members can be the most difficult people to convince to our religious viewpoint. James began as the unconvinced brother of Jesus [John 7:5]. If there was no Resurrection, then why did James—who was called “the Just” by second-century historians Clement and Hegesippus
²⁷
—suddenly come to believe that his brother really was the Messiah? Unless he saw the resurrected Christ, why would James become the leader of the church in Jerusalem and suffer a martyr’s death?)

7. The Jewish enemies of Christianity don’t deny the evidence but offer faulty naturalistic explanations to account for it.

IV. Additional Confirmation—
The collective references of other ancient historians and writers confirm this basic storyline of the New Testament documents, and several archaeological discoveries affirm the details those documents describe.

When you put the evidence in proper context, you can see why
we
don’t have enough faith to be skeptical about it.
It’s a lot more reasonable to be skeptical about skepticism!

Skeptics who look at points II-IV above (including the subpoints) may conclude that Jesus did not rise from the dead. But if they do, they’ve got to provide evidence for an alternative theory that can account for
all
of these points. As we have seen, they have failed, and failed miserably. The Resurrection best explains
all
of the evidence.

Since there’s a God who can act, there can be acts of God. When God’s intention is announced in advance, and you then have good eyewitness testimony and corroborating evidence that such events actually occurred,
it takes a lot more faith to deny those events than to believe
them.

E
XTRAORDINARY
C
LAIMS AND
S
ELF
-C
ANCELING
E
VIDENCE

There are two more objections that skeptics often bring up against the Resurrection and miracles. The first one is a demand for extraordinary evidence.

Extraordinary Evidence—
Some skeptics might admit that the Resurrection is possible, but they say it would require extraordinary evidence to believe it. That is, since the New Testament makes extraordinary claims—such as miracles—we must have extraordinary evidence in order to believe those claims. This objection seems reasonable until you ask, “What does ‘extraordinary’ mean?”

If it means
beyond the natural,
then the skeptic is asking the Resurrection to be confirmed by another miracle. How could that work? In order to believe in the first miracle (the Resurrection), the skeptic would then need a second miracle to support it. He would then demand a third miracle to support the second, and this would go on to infinity. So by this criteria, the skeptic would never believe in the Resurrection even if it really happened. There’s something wrong with a standard of proof that makes it impossible for you to believe what actually has occurred.

If “extraordinary” means
repeatable
as in a laboratory, then no event from history can be believed because historical events cannot be repeated. The believability of historical events can only be confirmed by looking at the quality of the eyewitness evidence and the nature of the forensic evidence in the light of the principles of uniformity and causality (we covered those principles in chapter 5). Besides, atheists who demand repeatability for biblical miracles are inconsistent because they do not demand repeatability of the historical “miracles” in which they believe—the Big Bang, spontaneous generation of first life, and macroevolution of subsequent life forms.

If “extraordinary” means
more than usual,
then that’s exactly what we have to support the Resurrection. We have
more
eyewitness documents and
earlier
eyewitness documents for the Resurrection than for anything else from the ancient world. Moreover, these documents include
more
historical details and figures that have been corroborated by
more
independent and external sources than anything else from the ancient world. And as we’ve just reviewed, we also have
more
than usual circumstantial evidence supporting the Resurrection.

Finally, the skeptic’s presupposition can be challenged. We don’t need “extraordinary” evidence to believe something. Atheists affirm that from their own worldview. They believe in the Big Bang not because they have “extraordinary” evidence for it but because there is good evidence that the universe exploded into being out of nothing. Good evidence is all you need to believe something. However, atheists don’t have even good evidence for some of their own precious beliefs. For example, atheists believe in spontaneous generation and macroevolution on faith alone. We say faith alone because, as we saw in chapters 5 and 6, there’s not only little or no evidence for spontaneous generation and macro-evolution, but there’s strong evidence
against
those possibilities.

Furthermore, skeptics don’t demand “extraordinary” evidence for other “extraordinary” events from history. For example, few events from ancient history are more “extraordinary” than the accomplishments of Alexander the Great (356–323 B.C.). Despite living only 33 years, Alexander achieved unparalleled success. He conquered much of the civilized world at the time, from Greece, east to India and south to Egypt. Yet how do we know this about Alexander? We have no sources from his lifetime or soon after his death. And we have only fragments of two works from about 100 years after his death. The truth is,
we base virtually everything
we know about the “extraordinary” life of Alexander the Great
from historians who wrote 300 to 500 years after his death!
In light of the robust evidence for the life of Christ, anyone who doubts Christ’s historicity should also doubt the historicity of Alexander the Great. In fact, to be consistent, such a skeptic would have to doubt
all
of ancient history.
²⁸

Why do skeptics demand “extraordinary” evidence for the life of Christ but not the life of Alexander the Great? Because they’re hung up on miracles again. Despite the fact that miracles are possible because God exists—and despite the fact that miracles were predicted and then witnessed—skeptics can’t bear to admit that miracles have actually occurred. So they set the bar for believability too high. It’s as if some skeptics are saying, “I won’t believe in miracles because I haven’t seen one. If the resurrected Jesus were to appear to me, then I would believe in him.” Now that would be extraordinary evidence.

It certainly would be extraordinary, but is it really necessary? Does Jesus have to appear to every person in the world to make his claims credible? Why would he? We don’t have to witness every event firsthand in order to believe the event actually occurred. In fact, it would be physically impossible to do so. We believe the testimony of others if they are trustworthy individuals, and especially if their testimony is corroborated by other data. This is exactly the case with the testimony of the New Testament writers.

Furthermore, as we pointed out in chapter 8, if God were too overt because of frequent miraculous displays, then he might, in some cases, infringe on our free will. If the purpose of this life is to allow us to freely make choices that will prepare us for eternity, then God will give us convincing evidence but not compelling evidence of his existence and purposes. Therefore, those who want to follow God can do so with confidence, and those who do not can suppress or ignore the evidence and live as if he didn’t exist.