Five Thoughts on the Gosnell Conviction

Here are five brief thoughts on the conviction and sentencing of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, the Philadelphia abortion provider. Recently, Dr. Gosnell was sentenced to life in prison for performing "abortions" on multiple children born after 24-weeks, including children born alive.

1. Gosnell exposed the true horrors of abortion. 
This case exposed to a wide audience the horrible practices of abortion. Dr. Gosnell committed these crimes by an unspeakable practice he called "snipping," i.e. the cutting of children's spinal cords with scissors. That this practice (or a similar technique) could ever be performed on any infant--much less those born alive--is beyond comprehension. This trial brought the bloody mess that is the practice of abortion to our collective conscience, and forced us to reckon with its sheer monstrosity. 

2. The power of conservative social media. 
Although the mainstream news media was slow to cover this trial, Gosnell eventually began to receive the coverage it deserved to have from the start. Whether it was shunned because of the terrors of the details of the trial, or because the liberal-leaning media knew that it was damaging to an "abortion on demand" ideology, we may never know. What we do know is that it was conservative bloggers, including users of micro-blogs like Twitter with its #Gosnell campaign, who brought this case to the attention of the world.

In case you were wondering, FOX News and CNN covered the sentencing of Dr. Gosnell on live TV. When I flipped over to MSNBC, they were eagerly promoting a new movie about Wikileaks: disgusting. 

3. Our existing laws are in serious need of revision.
Roe vs. Wade made the rubric of dividing pregnancy into trimesters the universal language of our medical system. Unfortunately, most states' abortion laws are governed by medical science and knowledge that is decades old. Today, premature children are able to live outside the womb weeks--or even months--earlier than they were in the 1970's. A child that was considered "viable" then, may be viable much earlier today.

Although I consider life to begin at the moment of conception, (as do most serious Bible-believing Christians), even those who do not share our conviction must now reckon with the fact that a baby is clearly alive--by any medical, philosophical, or theological standard--long before 39-weeks.

That this is the case cannot seriously be disputed by any rational thinker. Today's 3D ultrasound technology is a major player in convincing our society of the true miracle of life in the womb. 

4. These horrible acts are likely to be much more widespread than we are ready to admit. 
Already--just a week later--there are allegations of another case in Texas that may be even worse than the Gosnell case. The practice of "snipping" live-born children was apparently not restricted to an obscure location in inner-city Philly, as many would have us believe. The reports of one Dr. Douglas Karpen are rumored to be more despicable than Gosnell, if that is even possible. This case, if reports by observers and witnesses are to be believed, also includes the decapitation of infant children.

5. The failure of federal and state governments to regulate the entire industry of abortion providers is a disgrace.
Gosnell got away with his murderous rampage for years, decades even. No regulator would touch his so called "medical" practice. Sadly, he was never brought down by the incidents and reports related to infanticide; it was drug charges that eventually brought investigators looking. Our societal reluctance to regulate abortion providers because it seems to violate a "right" to abortion-on-demand is heinous indeed.


Matthew Everhard is the Senior Pastor of Faith Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Brooksville, Florida.

The Dangers and Delights of Christian Biography

The Dangers and Delights of Reading Christian Biography

Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us (Philippians 3:17).

***

Be imitators of me as I am of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1).

***

Dr. John Piper chose the above text from Philippians 3:17 when he gave the first ever “Charles Haddon Spurgeon” lecture at the Nicole Institute of Baptist Studies on the campus of Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida. I was there to hear the lecture in person. His point was that just as Paul faithfully imitated Christ, and others likewise imitated Paul, so too we ought to continue that long chain of men and women who for generations have trailed after our glorious and Risen Lord.

For seventy minutes I sat in awe listening to one of my favorite living preachers waxing eloquent about one of my favorite dead preachers. This was pure joy to me, because for nearly twenty years I have been consumed with reading the biographies of famous Christians who have gone before me. Curiously and by some divine “coincidence,” I had just read the same biography on Spurgeon from which Piper apparently crafted his manuscript for that electric evening.

I cannot estimate how valuable to my soul these types of biographies have been over the decades, especially as a local church pastor.

During some years, I have chosen one particular man as my focal point and read as much as I possibly could both by and about him. I have especially focused on those from my own theological tradition whose perspective is often close to mine. I went through a Jonathan Edwards phase first, then a year or so in John Calvin, then a Francis Schaeffer period. Spliced in between these times I have grown close to other dead men as well: the Reformers and Puritans always foremost among them.

Strangely, these now-glorified saints have become my “friends.” Sometimes, particularly during seasons of mild depression and apparent ministry defeats, they have become closer to me than my actual friends. Perhaps some others reading these lines will share that strange trans-generational experience.

It is during these dark times that we find one of the most delightful serendipities of reading Christian biographies: we find that the exact same struggles that we have endured are not so terribly unique after all. There is no temptation—either of body or mind—that has not been experienced by another brother come before me. There is no malady of frame or soul that God has not called another believer to trudge through, long before I came along. The ability of previous generations to endure through suffering actually has the strange power of pulling me along through the midst of my own battles.

Too, I find that my unquenchable passion to be in the presence of the Holy One has been shared by a unique breed of men and women in whose footprints I now walk. When I read in 1999 of Hudson Taylor’s passion for the lost souls of China, I found a man who shared—and greatly excelled—the angst I felt for those who don’t know Jesus. Like him, I felt willing to cross land and sea to share the Gospel with even one unreached individual. Hudson Taylor lived and died for the lost!  

When I visited A.W. Tozer’s grave in Akron not far from where I grew up, and just a stone’s throw from my in-law’s home, I felt that I shared the same longing to delight in God’s presence as the man whose several books I had lately enjoyed.

Who would not be moved by the accounts of Edwards’ fiery preaching in the Great Awakening, or be taken up in the Luther’s joyous fear of declaring “Here I stand!” at the Diet of Worms? How could I avoid Calvin’s tender pastoral spirit “rubbing off” on me as he wrote tearful letters to men soon to be martyred for the faith in Reformation-era France? How could I not be stirred within when I read one of Spurgeon’s echoing sermons, still just as alive today as the day his voice dominated the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London? How could I not savor my English Bible more when I learned of all that William Tyndale endured to smuggle New Testaments into England in bales of hay? I wept at 1:00am when I read of Dietrich Bonheoffer’s martyrdom just weeks before the Second World War ended in a Flossenberg prison camp.  

But here is where I find the great danger: the more I try to be like these men, hoping to see the shape of my own life in their ever-lengthening shadows, the more I know I can never measure up.

I find that my very pursuit of “imitation” can be my greatest frustration. Have you ever tried to photocopy another photocopy before? The more generations away from the original we get, the worse the quality of the print becomes. In the same way, some of the biographies that we read tend to make the error of “hagiography,” they no longer produce accurate representations of the man and instead make them into saints: halo, wings, and all.

I must become content—even pleased, if I can be so bold—with the person God has made me to be.

“Hagiography” (literally: saint writings) is the spurious genre of trying to make another man into a complete saint. In the biography of Spurgeon I mentioned above, for instance, the author studiously avoided almost any critique of the man himself. In an almost forced confession to create the veneer of “objectivity,” the author finally admitted that Spurgeon (gasp!) smoked cigars! That was the only fault he could find!

And so as a reader, I am nearly driven to despair. Reading the account of a hero whose ministry only grew—all the time—made me wonder if there wasn’t something seriously wrong with me. My own ministry wasn’t growing at all. By the time we get more than a hundred years away from an historical figure, the more perfect his biographers seem to cast him. His weaknesses are glossed over, especially those which his wife and children probably knew best.  

Yes Calvin and Luther et. al. were geniuses in their times and greatly used of God in their unique age. But if I try to replicate the extraordinary acts of these men and women, I will find myself increasingly frustrated. These men, after all, were extraordinary, not because they were miniature “christs” themselves, but because God in His mercy saw fit to use them extraordinarily.  

It is simply not fair to compare ourselves with the all-time “greats,” or to expect that the unusual outpourings of God’s Holy Spirit ought to become usual in our day.

Yes, there are times when God’s Kingdom advances in very marked ways. The wheat grows quickly after the thunderstorms, but it also grows during more temperate weather as well. Even if more slowly. God is glorified as much by the ordinary, trudging, faithful ox in the field as He is by the brilliant lightning bolts that lead the storm.

To expect to have the computer-like mind of a John Calvin or the preaching unction of a Charles Spurgeon, or the audacity of Martin Luther is simply not a fair. True, we will continue to hope and pray for God to raise up such men that can shake our own generation out of its complacency, but to expect every faithful man and woman to change the world alone is not realistic.  

More realistic (and more Biblical) is to expect God to smack the world out of its lethargy by a thousand thousands of ordinary, unknown, average believers who are sincerely pursing the glory of Christ in their own day and generation.

God grant us to be among their number. Amen. 

...

The preceding essay is from Matthew Everhard's forthcoming book, Unknown: the World-Changing Power of Ordinary Christians. Matthew is the Senior Pastor of Faith Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Brooksville, Florida.

Why I Still Preach the Old-Fashioned Doctrine of Sin

From time to time, as people are walking out of our services at Faith Evangelical Presbyterian Church (hopefully not for the last time!) I am asked why I preach the doctrine of sin so relentlessly. 

Let me briefly share the three most common formulations of this question that I hear.

(1) Isn’t the doctrine of sin hopelessly outdated and old-fashioned? Nobody talks about sin this way anymore, they reason. Shouldn’t modern people find different ways to dialogue about our problems than this old-school “puritan" talk?

Reply: We can answer this question with another question (or a series of questions): Is violence outdated? Is abuse real? Does divorce still happen? Is addiction a problem? Do you know anyone that has ever cheated on their spouse? Do you know anyone that is greedy? Have you witnessed any neighbor kids that are bullies? Have you ever seen a child that is a selfish brat? Do you know yourself to be guilty of any of these things? 

Sin’s devastating effects and consequences are still felt everywhere, both in society and in the individual heart.Therefore the doctrine of sin is not passe either.

(2) By declaring all people to be sinners, don’t Christians have a "low view" of human worth? To say it another way, shouldn’t we be looking for the best in everyone? Doesn't this kind of negativity crush people's self esteem?

Reply: We actually have a very high view of humanity and the value of human life, much higher, I content, than the unbelieving world. This is why, for example we are pro-life, and in favor of traditional marriages, and against such things as pornography. We despise actions and values that deny and degrade humans of their intrinsic worth in Creation.  

However--as high of a view of humans as we have--we have an infinitely higher view of God! We have such an exalted view of the holiness, righteousness, greatness, and majesty of God that all things look like specks of dust in comparison. How much more so, then, the sinful human heart in rebellion against a holy God! It is like comparing 10,000 candles to the light of the sun! 

We preach sin BECAUSE we believe in the holiness of God.

Objection 3: Instead of preaching sin, why don’t you just focus on morality and good works? Wouldn't it be more effective, say, to preach motivational sermons focused on doing good deeds?

Reply: We do, in fact, preach good works, but moralism alone (exhortations toward good deeds and actions) has two inherent problems: First, moralism does not have the power to change the heart. As long as we believe the "answer" is trying harder, or doing better we will continue to trust in ourselves for improvement. Eventually this will exhaust and exasperate us and we will see that a change in actions is simply not enough. We need a change of heart. The Bible calls this regeneration.

Secondly, moralism alone does not drive sinners to the cross of Christ for grace, because it contends that the answer is within oneself. The more we look to ourselves, the less we look to Jesus. The cross of Christ is the only place where sinners can ultimately find grace sufficient for this total transformation.

  

Driving sinners to the grace of the cross is the ultimate goal of all preaching, and the grounds for continuing to preach the doctrine of sin--even if fewer and fewer are doing this today.

Pastor Matthew Everhard is the Senior Pastor of Faith Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Brooksville Florida.

Ask Pastor Matt: Did Jesus Die for All People?

 Pastor Matt, 

I came across 2 Cor 5:14-15 today.  

"For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised."

It seems to indicate that Christ had all of humanity in mind when He went to the cross.  Is our position that the "all" refers only to the elect in this passage, or the whole human race?
  

Thanks for being the resident theologian.

Great question and thanks for asking!

Yes, there are a handful of passages like this that talk about Christ's death being for "all men" or for "all." 

Of course, those who are not Reformed point to these passages right away to refute our view of the doctrine we call "limited atonement," that is to say, that Christ came purposefully to die to redeem His elect. This doctrine usually separates so-called four-point Calvinists from five-point Calvinists (and of course from Arminians). 

In my view, we ought to understand these passages in one of several ways.

1. First, we ask who is the "all" in view? In the text you cited, a Reformed reader would first point out presence of quite a bit of "we" and "us" language in the chapter. This refers to Christians. "All" does not necessarily need to mean "all men who have ever been born," but can mean "all those being discussed currently in the context."

For instance, if we were to say, "I hope they all come tonight to our party," it is taken for granted that we mean all those on the invitation list. We don't mean all men ever born. If that were the case we probably would run out of food and seating rather quickly. If I say "Don't eat all the potato chips!" it is obvious that I am referring to the bag of chips currently on the table, not all the chips ever produced.

In everyday language, the context of our conversation determines the parameters of the word "all."

2. Secondly, in the passage you mentioned above, 2 Corinthians 5, we might suggest that the "all" specifically refers to all those who are saved. This seems likely to me since vs. 14 seems to limit the discussion to those who have "died" with Christ in some way and vs. 15 seems to point to all who "live not for themselves but for Him."

Personally,  I can't see how those expressions would apply to unbelievers.

3. In some other passages, for instance John 12:32, we understand the word "all" to mean "all kinds" or "all classifications" (that is to say, every tribe, every nation, the rich, the poor etc.) and NOT all individuals, since if we were to take "all" otherwise, we would have to become advocates for universalism, and deny the reality of hell. The rest of the New Testament will not allow us to come to that conclusion.

4. Finally, keep in mind too, that while we who are Reformed believe that Jesus' death is effective and intended only for the elect, we do NOT deny that the Gospel offer is real, and saves whosoever will believe. It is not a fake or duplicitous offer to repent and be saved, but a true offer of saving grace. 

Reformed people like to put it this way, "Jesus' death is sufficient for the whole world, but efficient for those who believe." 

To send a question my way, go ahead and email me anytime! 

Matthew Everhard is the Senior Pastor of Faith Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Brooksville, Fl.

Five Things to Do on Good Friday.

"Good Friday" is the name traditionally given to the day on which Christ died on the cross. For many
churches, Good Friday is marked by a worship service in a solemn and contrite manner in which sermons on the cross of Christ are preached.

However, if your congregation holds Maundy Thursday services instead--or doesn't hold either--here are a few things you might consider for your devotional life as we prepare for Resurrection Sunday. .

• Tune your heart to the grace of the cross with some worship music. Here is Sarah Sadler's haunting version of "How Deep the Father's Love for Us." 

• Listen to a recording the the Gospel accounts of the cross. The entire Bible is free in audio form on the ESV website. Here is the audio of Mark 15. (You may have to click to the "listen" button on the top).

• Listen to a sermon on the cross of Christ. Here is mine from Matthew 27:15-23, detailing the release of Barabbas and the crucifixion of Jesus, entitled "The Exchange." 

• Read a rich and rewarding explanation of the work of atonement. Here is R.C. Sproul's devotional thoughts on the terms "expiation" and "propitiation." 

• Read the historic Reformed confessions of faith on the cross. Here is the Westminster Confession of Faith chapter 8 on "Christ the Mediator."

Hope you find some of these resources helpful!

Matthew Everhard is the Senior Pastor of Faith Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Brooksville, Florida. 

Book Review: Spurgeon: A New Biography, by Arnold Dallimore

As a pastor, I have an incredibly high admiration for the life and ministry of Charles Spurgeon. His preaching, writing, and leadership stand out among the all-time greats of Christian history. Were I to be granted a "double portion" of any one man's spirit, as Elisha sought from Elijah, I might just choose C.H. Spurgeon.

This biography by Arnold Dallimore is an excellent introduction to the life and ministry of the "Prince of Preachers." Reading through this brief work will give the reader a swift but sufficient introduction to the primary life events, theological moorings, and major accomplishments of this stalwart Christian hero.

As Dallimore traces the incomparable Spurgeon from his progenic childhood, beyond his meteoric rise as a young Baptist pastor, and through his grueling sufferings of both body and soul (the Downgrade Controversy was especially wearing on the London Calvinist), the reader gets the impression that Spurgeon was nearly apostolic.

In fact, the reason that I gave this work four stars instead of five is that it verges on hagiography. Throughout, nearly the only "weakness" that Dallimore can detect in the life of C.H. Spurgeon is that he smoked cigars and had an alcoholic beverage from time to time! Certainly, this work is an attempt, however admirable, to cast Spurgeon in the purest of lights and to give him his due among the venerable men of Christian history.

I too love much about Spurgeon: his pleading for souls, his resistance to the creeping influence of liberal theology, and his ardent defense of Calvinism and the doctrines of our Puritan forefathers. But as a pastor myself, I might have been even MORE encouraged (if that were possible) to hear about a single time that Spurgeon had failed at something--even if just once in his life!

Instead, Dallimore casts Spurgeon as almost impeccable in both life and character. "The man who lived in CONSTANT fellowship with God manifested in his daily life ALL the fruits of the Spirit. Here love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control were EVER present, and with them there was a hatred of their opposites--a loathing of EVERY form of sin" (p. 179, emphasis added). Wow.

I left the book wondering: did Spurgeon have any Achilles heal at all? Did he succeed as a father and husband as he did as an author and mega-church pastor? (Notably, almost nothing is said of Spurgeon raising his sons in the home). Did the unfaltering success of his publications and preaching success ever cause him to need to repent of pride?

Dallimore's work was thorough, interesting, and compelling throughout. Overall, I would highly recommend this work as a good introduction to C.H. Spurgeon, but I would caution all who read it to not compare themselves too rigorously to Dallimore's protagonist. None of us will be able to stand next to him.

Matthew Everhard is the Senior Pastor of Faith Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Brooksville, Florida.

Was the Resurrection of Jesus Really an Historical Event?

The Objection

For many, the Christian teaching of the resurrection of the dead is an intellectual stumbling block that is difficult to surmount. That a body could rise again seems to fly in the face of our every experience with death: corpses do not typically reanimate before our very eyes! Many skeptics would attempt to attack the Christian faith in its entirety by endeavoring to show that the resurrection of Jesus Christ was impossible. In this article, I will consider the following objection: That Christianity is founded upon the impossible premise that a man, Jesus of Nazareth, actually rose from the dead some time around the year 33AD.

Of course, the entirely of the Christian faith does rest largely upon the doctrine of Jesus Christ’s resurrection from the dead. The skeptic is right to suppose that, if it could be shown that Jesus did not rise, most of our doctrine would crumble, as would the spiritual authority of the New Testament. Nevertheless, we take this Scriptural teaching to be an historic fact—Jesus Christ literally rose from the dead on the third day after His crucifixion. For this reason, we do not understand the Gospel accounts to be any kind of fanciful or mythological account. Rather, we, like the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, rest the whole of our faith on the fact of the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

First Reply: The Gospel Accounts

Let us first consider that the oldest and most reliable documents pertaining to these events are the Gospels themselves. Far from being “removed” from the actual events, the Gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are indeed the most reliable accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus. All of the Gospels were written by either eye-witnesses to the ministry of Jesus (Matthew and John were His disciples) or by the direct protégés of such (Mark and Luke were students of Peter and Paul respectively).

That these Gospels are chalked full of specific names and hometowns of dozens of eyewitnesses  to these events (Joseph of Arimathea, Simon of Cyrene, Mary of Magdala, Lazarus and Martha of Bethany, Pontius Pilate etc.) further underscores that these documents are verifiable source material, and not later reconstructions. Many of these eyewitnesses were still alive at the time of composition, as each of the Gospels was written within the first and second generations of those who lived with Christ. So many eyewitnesses to the resurrection still lived during the time of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians that he can state without blinking an eye:

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living" (1 Corinthians 15:3-6, emphasis added).

While many ancient works have very few copies and manuscripts, the Gospels contain by far more manuscript evidence than any other ancient document. For instance, there are over 20,000 extant manuscripts (or fragments) of the NT, as compared to only 9 of Homer’s Illiad. This makes the NT by far the most copied and transcribed document of the ancient world.

Among the eyewitness documents themselves, there is no discrepancy of fact. Without any hesitation, we can say that ALL of the Gospel accounts invariably testify that the resurrection of Jesus is an historic fact. NT writers took great pains to ensure the accuracy of their renderings. Luke for instance writes,

“Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught” (Luke 1:1-4).

Second Reply: The Faithful Martyrs

Secondly, we must consider that, if Jesus did not literally rise from the dead, we have no explanation as to why most of his followers were willing to pay such a great price for their faith, nor do we have an explanation for the rapid growth of Christianity in the first three centuries.

Eleven of the original twelve disciples (excluding Judas) suffered for their testimony of Jesus’ cross and resurrection. Of those eleven, ten died a martyr’s death, while John was merely banished. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, we would have to assume that these disciples were willing to suffer brutal deaths at the hands of their murders for what they knew to be a lie.

Not only does the Bible tell us many of the stories of those who suffered for the fact of the resurrection, but extra-biblical literature supports these historic events. Without any doubt, Christians suffered tremendously under the regime of Emperor Nero (and others). While given the chance to preserve their own lives by simply acknowledging “Caesar is Lord,” thousands of Christians preferred to meet their fate at the burning stake or in the arena because they could not deny what they knew to be true.

Secular sociologist Rodney Stark acknowledged that it was the Early Christians’ adamant belief in the resurrection that allowed for their meteoric rise in growth in the first three centuries. Writing about the plagues of 165 AD, he states, “Once death lost its power over life, life itself took on new meaning for believers." Stark states, “The Romans threw people out into the street at the first symptoms of disease, because they knew it was contagious and they were afraid of dying," says Stark. "But the Christians stayed and nursed the sick. You could only do that if you thought, 'So what if I die? I have life eternal'." (1) 

The Apostle Paul, himself once a great opponent of Christianity, was overcome by the reality of Jesus raised from the dead (See Acts 9). Nevertheless, because of his experience of the risen Christ, he was willing to endure tremendous suffering for the event on which he based the rest of his life. Standing before Governor Felix, Paul, radically changed by the Gospel could proclaim, “It is concerning the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial before you today” (Acts 24:21). How else can we explain such a dramatic change in his life and character?

Third Reply: Opponents' Testimony

Finally, we can conclude our case by consulting the early opponents of Christianity. We might expect, of course, that the data left by followers of Jesus Christ would support our conclusions, but what of the writings of those who persisted in opposing the Gospel? If we can find that the writings of early opponents actually support the evidence of the resurrection, we can begin to rest our case.

Indeed this is exactly what we find. Josephus is widely regarded to be an authoritative historian of the ancient Jewish people. He was by no means a believer in Christ. Yet his writings actually confirm the Gospel accounts. The most ancient version of Josephus’ history (the Arabic version) states,

“At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.”

Governor Pliny wrote to Emperor Trajan further underscoring the Christian narrative,

“They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god… I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you. For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms.”

Finally, the Babylonian Talmud, written in AD 217 states,

“On the eve of Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover! - Ulla retorted: Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defense could be made? Was he not a “Mesith” [enticer].”

What is interesting about each of these three hostile accounts is that they do NOT seem to conflict with the Christian gospels as regards the basic elements of the Christian story. On the contrary, they seem to actually support that chronology of the Gospel accounts: viz. that Jesus Christ was a miracle worker (Talmud: “practiced sorcery”), claimed to be God (Pliny: “as to a god”), exhibited Messianic credentials (Josephus: “perhaps the Messiah”), was crucified (Talmud: “On the eve of Passover Yeshu was hanged”) and rose again (Josephus: “But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion”).

In other words, the early opponents of Christianity objected to the convictions of early Christians but not to their facts. So, then the most vigorous opponents of Christianity do not dispute the narrative of chronological events but rather corroborate them, though them predictably arrive at other conclusions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, then, I would submit that the burden of proof lies not upon the shoulders of the Christian who asserts that Jesus rose, but upon the shoulders of any who would deny the historicity of the most ancient and authoritative accounts (i.e. the Gospels). We leave the skeptic with the following questions with which to grapple:

• If Jesus did not rise, how does one explain the tremendous growth of Christianity in the first three centuries?

• If Jesus did not rise, how does one reckon with the documentary evidence that says He did?

• If Jesus did not rise, how does one explain the dramatic conversion of the Apostle Paul who hated the Church and sought to destroy it?

• If Jesus did not rise, how does one explain the willingness of so many early Christians to suffer for their convictions?

• If Jesus did not rise, how does one explain the absence of any physical corpse?

 Notes:
(1) www.newsweek.com/1999/04/04/2000-years-of-jesus.html


Matthew Everhard is the Senior Pastor of Faith Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Brooksville, Florida