Is God Dead?

Last week, we examined the reliability of the biblical text and concluded that there were three good reasons to believe the New Testament canon was a natural and expected product of the unfolding of redemptive history in Jesus Christ. First, the story needed to be finished.

 The first-century Israelites were waiting for God to finish the redemption story that began in the Old Testament. Consequently, the earliest Christians believed that He was completing the story through the man sent from God, Jesus. Resurrection scholar N. T. Wright said that for the first-century Israelites, “the great story of the Hebrew scriptures was . . . read in the Second Temple period as a story looking for a conclusion.”

The Israelites were looking for God to do something; they were looking for Him to fulfill the promises made to Adam and Eve (Gen 3:15), promises made through Daniel (Dan 3:25; 7), through Isaiah (Isa 7:14, 53), and many, many more throughout the Old Testament—some have said as many as 456 prophecies about the coming Messiah. Undoubtedly, the Israelites were looking for God to act in redemptive history. And so it was that many of the Israelites believed that God’s 400-year silence had ended in the person of Jesus. They also knew that whenever God had acted in a redemptive way, He usually gave them a new revelation. We see this following the Great Flood; we see this following the Israelites’ rescue out of Egypt, and so on. Surely, the Israelites who converted to early Christianity likewise expected a new revelation or a new covenant to be established, considering the arrival, death, and resurrection of the long-awaited Messiah.

The second reason we can believe that the New Testament was part of the natural unfolding of redemptive history in Jesus, according to Christian apologist Jonathan Marrow, was that “the earliest Christians understood that covenants in the ancient world were written documents and believed Jesus the Messiah had inaugurated the New Covenant.” Jesus had said at the Last Supper, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood” (Luke 22:20), and Paul refers to himself as a minister of the “new covenant” (2 Cor 3:6). Expectedly, the early Jewish Christians were expecting a written New Covenant with God.

The third reason we can believe that the New Testament was part of the natural unfolding of redemptive history was that “the earliest Christians believed that Jesus uniquely authorized the apostles to communicate the message of the New Covenant to the world.”  Jesus had specifically given the disciples His authority to teach, preach, and write the Gospel and relate the New Covenant to the people of God (cf Mark 3:14-15, Matt 28:19-20).

Given the Jewish heritage of most of the earliest Christians, it would have been an expectation for the apostles to write down their eyewitness accounts of what they had seen and heard before they died, to capture and record that eyewitness testimony that would outlast the apostles themselves.

In light of the resurrection of Jesus, it is these three reasons that point decisively to the early Christian’s expectation of a New Testament. Christian theologian Kavin Rowe said, “The resurrection is the central truth around which all other matters turn.” In that, Rowe is exactly right. And since the resurrection of Jesus is the central truth, a written covenant considering the accomplishments of the resurrection is a high expectation.

Nonetheless, we now find ourselves at a crossroads; we have been arguing that the earliest Christians fully anticipated the New Testament, but our argument is weak. And our argument is weak because we have said nothing about the truthfulness of the sources of evidence. We have said nothing concerning the truthfulness of the sources that tell us Jesus did come, that He died on the Cross, and that He was resurrected. Therefore, addressing a few of the major objections regarding the truthfulness of the gospel accounts is important. The question comes down to this; “Can we trust the Gospel accounts?”

The former Christian Bart Ehrman was educated at Princeton Theological Seminary, Moody Bible Institute, and Wheaton College. Along the way, he converted to agnosticism during his graduate studies and then to full atheism a few years later. However, this is the unsettling part; Ehrman is a current professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Needless to say, his influence is substantial. Perhaps most concerning is that Ehrman is a multi-time New York Times best-selling author writing against Christianity in clever and misleading ways.

Bart Ehrman has been one of the most prolific critics of Christianity over the last 20 years. Past articles in this column have considered several of his arguments regarding the Christian resurrection narrative. You will recall that Ehrman claims the resurrection accounts recorded in the Gospels are written long after the actual event; he claims the resurrection narrative violates Ockham’s razor and claims that the gospels are little more than deceptive Christian propaganda. For these reasons, I invite you to join us again next week as we respond to these claims.

Ty B. Kerley, DMin., is an ordained minister who teaches Christian apologetics and relief preaches in Southern Oklahoma. Dr. Kerley and his wife, Vicki, are members of the Waurika church of Christ, and live in Ardmore, OK. You can contact him at dr.kerley@isGoddead.com.