Modern Man and Belief

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 24]

     "Can modern man really believe in Jesus?" Increasingly we run into this question. It is not always asked by those who are in open revolt against God. More often it is the plaintive query of those whose broadening intellectual scope leaves wide chasms between childhood acceptance and mature skepticism. So many cherished notions of the past have been destroyed by advanced research that it would appear that everything once held as true must be surrendered to avoid the embarrassment of being labeled as provincial. Eventually man ends up without conviction and even doubting his own existence.

     A little thought will show that the question is rather foolish. As it stands it implies that there is a difference in the way that a modern man believes and the way in which his ancestors believed. But this is not so. All rational men believe in the same way; that is they are led to belief by the same method. Belief is the response of the heart to testimony and the nature of the testimony will always govern the reaction to it, emotionally or otherwise. The question, then, is no different for man in the twentieth century than for man in any previous century. It is simply one related to testimony.

     Is the testimony concerning Jesus adequate to establish the fact and nature of his existence? Is it credible? The approach must be made by examination of the witnesses. We say it must be so made because there is no other way by which a thing of which one has no personal knowledge can be affirmed or denied. There are three ways open to one who would reject that which is testified to as a fact.

     1. He may attack the character of the witnesses. In such case he must present testimony to establish that they possessed neither veracity nor integrity. Or, he may prove that they invented their testimony for an ulterior motive, producing a hoax for personal gain or other private consideration.

     2. He may challenge the competency of the witnesses by demonstrating through counter testimony that they were not in the place or position at the time alleged and could not have ascertained the facts, or that their acquaintance and association

[Page 25]

with the principal was so superficial and sporadic as to render any conclusion invalid. Or, he may prove that the witnesses acted out of sheer prejudice in formulating and presenting the testimony.

     3. He may examine the testimony as given and show that it is contradictory to such a degree that the witnesses actually offset each other.

     Until "modern man" examines for himself carefully the testimony relating to Jesus and is able to give justifiable grounds for rejection of it, he proceeds wholly upon the basis of prejudice. The word "prejudice" simply means "to judge before," that is without examination of the facts. In spite of his infatuation with intellectuality, modern man may be as biased and jaundiced as his predecessors. We have the testimony of witnesses concerning the fact of Jesus. The number of witnesses is sufficient to establish the fact. We must either prove that they were persons of perfidy, or that they were incompetent, or that their testimony is contradictory. If "modern man" fails to do this he can never believe anything which has happened outside of his own sphere of observance, and he effectively cancels all history from his life.

     If Jesus really existed, and if the testimony concerning him is accurate, to refuse to believe in him does no actual harm to Jesus. A fact is wholly unaffected by acceptance or rejection. It remains a fact regardless of the attitude taken toward it. But refusal to believe it may do untold injury to the one who rejects it, and to those under the scope of his influence who look to him for guidance. Of course there are a great many matters of fact which one may ignore with no serious or immediate consequence. There are two kinds of facts--vital and incidental. The fact of Jesus is cardinal and radical. To ignore it is to invite disaster and destruction.

     We believe in Jesus as the Son of God. We regard him as the ruler of this universe. We do so upon what we accept as the testimony of credible witnesses. This may not affect what is called "modern man" for in the sophisticated language of our day this term is given a special and synthetic connotation. It does not refer to man in a certain era or epoch of history as contrasted with a previous age, but to a certain kind of man. "Modern man" is shrewd, canny and sagacious. He is the man of science who professes to live by knowledge and without faith. He does not realize that he may not be living at all in the fullest sense of the term. In spite of his suspicion and incredulity we still believe. Here are some of our reasons for doing so.

     1. The witnesses who bore testimony to Jesus were simple and undesigning men. In spite of the fact that they were constantly confronted by their enemies they were not charged with perjury. On the day that they announced that Jesus had been made both Lord and Christ, three thousand of those who had been responsible for the murder of Jesus less than two months before recanted and acknowledged as Lord the one whom they had crucified. A short time later a great number of priests became obedient to the faith which the witnesses announced.

     The Sanhedrin in Jerusalem was so annoyed with their testimony that they put them into custody. In a private meeting they questioned, "What shall we do with these men?" It would have pleased them beyond measure to have attacked their character, but not once did they do so. If their contemporaries, who sought every means of off-setting their witness, did not once charge them with fabrication, forgery or mendacity, it is too late to do so now. The only legitimate ground for so doing would be the discovery of new evidence not available to the judges of their day. This is impossible. We are forced to regard the witnesses as men of honesty and candor.

     It is evident that they did not invent the testimony about Jesus. In the first place they were incapable of producing a hoax by which to deceive millions of the wisest people on earth for nineteen centuries. Their antagonists were made to wonder about their boldness when they "perceived that they were uneducated, common men." They were from an ob-

[Page 26]

scure province of the Roman Empire, living in subjugation and in constant fear of the ruling authorities. It is incredible to suppose that they would conspire together to promote a delusion, and if they had done so they would never have included some of their number. One was a social outcast, one was a thief, and another a member of a party which was outside the pale of the law.

     Instead of expecting financial gain they actually sacrificed their jobs, investments, and security in order to follow Jesus. Even the outcast tax collector left his lucrative position. One who had studied to be a lawyer, and who threw over everything he had amassed to follow Jesus declared, "As servants of God we commend ourselves to you in every way: through great endurance, in afflictions, hardships, calamities, beatings, imprisonments, tumults, labors, watching, hunger," etc. All of them, with the exception of one, actually suffered death for his faith. It is admitted that dying for one's testimony does not prove it is true, but it proves that he believes it is true. One of them wrote, "Since we have the same spirit of faith as he had who wrote, 'I believed, and so I spoke,' we too believe, and so we speak." Even when threatened by the authorities they said, "For we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard."

     2. We accept the competency of the witnesses for theirs was not a mere passing acquaintance with the subject of their testimony. They had visual, audible and manual experience with Jesus. "We have heard, we have seen with our eyes, we have carefully scrutinized and touched with our hands...we saw it and testify to you." They were constantly with Jesus for more than three and one-half years. Indeed, before he would accept them as witnesses they had to accompany him all the time that he went in and out among them from the day he began his public ministry until the day he left the earth. They were chosen and qualified so their credentials could never be successfully invalidated. "And we are witnesses to all that he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him upon a tree; but God raised him up on the third day and made him manifest; not to all the people but to us who were chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead."

     That the witnesses did not concoct the testimony as a result of sheer prejudice appears certain from their own doubt and hesitancy in accepting the facts at first. When they were informed of the resurrection of Jesus, we are told, "But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it." Again, "After this he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country. And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them." Again, "Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they sat at tables; and he upbraided them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he was risen." So far from being biased in favor of the fact they had to be convinced of it.

     3. I have examined the testimony of the witnesses as it is preserved in writing. I have discovered no contradiction of such consequence as to refuse a verdict in reference to the fact. In addition I have also considered carefully the alleged contradictions of those who urge rejection of the testimony on this ground. I am convinced that most of the opposers do not distinguish between a contradiction and a discrepancy or contrariety. Contradictories always exclude each other and do not admit of explanation; while discrepancies may oppose each other in appearance, or in some particular, and may be harmonized when all facets of testimony are taken into consideration in conjunction with the circumstances involved.

     The philosopher William Paley wrote, "I know not a more rash or unphilosophical conduct of the understanding, than to reject the substance of a story by reason of some diversity in the circumstances with which it is related. The usual character of human testimony is substantial truth under circumstantial variety." It behooves us to remember that each of the

[Page 27]

witnesses who recorded testimony for us was writing to a different audience and with a different aspect in mind. Matthew wrote to the Jews to prove that Jesus was the Messiah of the prophets; Mark to the Romans to prove he was a world conqueror; Luke to the Greeks to prove that he was the ideal Man; John to the world to induce belief "that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing this, you might have life through his name." Yet all have the same Jesus in mind and all testify to those essential features which prove that his was a factual residence in history.

     Much of what appears to be discrepancy, or even inconsistency, is due to omission, a fact being noted by one witness which is not mentioned by others, or, if mentioned, appearing out of a chronological order. This may be accounted for by the various purposes of the several writers, but if the fact at issue is rejected on this basis, then all courts of law must cease to function as clearinghouses for cases on the basis of evidence. Those who are skilled in the science of jurisprudence are fully aware that when a number of witnesses testify to an incident with close and minute agreement, there may be a presumption of confederacy and fraud. The angle at which one views a person or thing may make a great difference in his actual testimony.

     When "modern man" rejects that which has been accepted for centuries upon the basis of evidence, there is as much reason for questioning the motivation of "modern man" as for being suspicious of the evidence. Indeed we may well wonder why he wants to discard that which has been the accepted standard of a majority of his ancestors. Unless he can prove that the witnesses were incompetent and irresponsible, what personal reason governs him in disregarding that which they have testified? Will acceptance of it necessitate just demands upon his life which he is unwilling to meet? Will it increase his responsibility in such a manner as to interfere with his material desires and pursuits? Is denial merely a way of escapism?

     One cannot simply say, "I do not believe in Jesus," without facing the question, "Why?" And he must offer more than prejudice as an answer to that. If he says, "My intellectual status will not allow me to believe in Jesus," he again must face the question, "Why?" Can one become so sophisticated that he is emancipated from the laws governing evidence? If so, let him be consistent and refuse to accept, believe or teach anything on that basis. So long as he acknowledges the validity of any conclusion based upon evidence, we will insist that he desist from forming a conclusion concerning Jesus until he has fairly attacked the evidence and proven that it is irrelevant or irrational in nature and content.

     Meanwhile we want to state unequivocally that we accept the testimony related to Jesus of Nazareth. We unashamedly vow belief that he is the Son of God and both Lord and Christ. While we are convinced that someday every intelligent being in the universe will be forced to admit this, we prefer to do it voluntarily and cheerfully, for he has said, "So every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven." Please consider this article as my personal acknowledgment of Jesus in your presence. Glory to his name!