Episode 72 – Miracles Part 5 – Objections to Miracles 1

Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” The goal of Anchored by Truth is to encourage everyone to grow in the Christian faith by anchoring themselves to the secure truth found in the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God.

Script: (Bible quotes from the New Living Translation)

The next day there was a wedding celebration in the village of Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there, and Jesus and his disciples were also invited to the celebration. …Standing nearby were six stone water jars, used for Jewish ceremonial washing. Each could hold twenty to thirty gallons. Jesus told the servants, “Fill the jars with water.” When the jars had been filled, he said, “Now dip some out, and take it to the master of ceremonies.” …

When the master of ceremonies tasted the water that was now wine, not knowing where it had come from (though, of course, the servants knew), he called the bridegroom over. “A host always serves the best wine first,” he said. “Then, when everyone has had a lot to drink, he brings out the less expensive wine. But you have kept the best until now!”

The Gospel of John, Chapter 2, verses 1 through 10, New Living Translation

********

VK: Hello! I’m Victoria K. Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. Today on Anchored by Truth we’re going to continue our discussion of miracles in the Bible – possibly one of the most misunderstood parts of scripture. To help us do that, I’m here today with RD Fierro, author and founder of Crystal Sea Books. Today we want to start looking at the objections that are frequently raised the Biblical accounts of miracles. But to try to be thorough we don’t think we will finish with this topic today. RD, why don’t you give us a little background on why it’s important for us to not only think about the role that miracles play in the Christian faith but also why believers need to think about potential objections to the historical validity of those miracles?

RD: Here at Anchored by Truth our fundamental purpose is to demonstrate that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God. It goes without saying that in today’s culture that claim is frequently disputed and, sadly, there are many people within the church who no longer hold to Biblical inerrancy or infallibility. Without wanting to go into too many details one of the most common objections lodged against the Bible is that it contains supernatural accounts which just can’t be trusted. Naturally, the Bible’s accounts of miracles are a frequent target of these objections. But I think it’s important for believers to understand that far from being a sort of side issue in the discussion of the reliability of the Bible, miracles are an essential element in demonstrating the truth of the Christian faith.

VK: How so? I mean, I think most Christians think that the accounts of miracles in the Bible are good stories – and they may even find them inspirational. But I think many believers would say, for instance, that even if Jesus didn’t turn the water into wine as we heard about in our opening scripture that wouldn’t affect the central purpose of Jesus’ life or message.

RD: And respectfully I would have to disagree with that conclusion for at least 3 reasons. First, if Jesus had performed no miracles during his life and ministry we would have far less, if any, evidence that Jesus was who He claimed to be – the fully human, fully divine Son of God. Second, if the miracle accounts in the Bible are just a form of well-intentioned pious fable then we would have to admit that parts of the Bible aren’t trustworthy. So, if parts of the Bible aren’t trustworthy, then how can we know which parts are and which parts aren’t? And third, if the Bible contains no evidence of it having a supernatural origin why would we consider it to be the revelation of an eternal, almighty, all-knowing supernatural God.

VK: So, your point is that the miracle accounts contained in the Bible demonstrate something that is absolutely vital to the overall truth claim of the Bible – that the Bible is a special revelation from the God who created the universe and who has superintended the course of history to bring about His intended purpose.

RD: Exactly. As you said, the Bible is God’s special revelation to mankind. Careful observations about the universe and life on earth tell you that the universe cannot account for its own existence. We’ve covered the evidence for that on a few different episodes of Anchored by Truth. By, looking at the composition and function of the universe and the organized, informational specificity of living creatures we know that there must be a self-existent Being somewhere who is the ultimate first cause of everything. Theologians sometimes refer to the source of knowledge that comes from our observations of nature as being “general revelation” because it is general in nature and in communication. It’s available to anyone who wants to think about it.

VK: But general revelation isn’t sufficient to tell us everything we need to know about God. For instance, from the size of the universe we can know that its Creator is a Being of immense power and knowledge, but we would never know that God has a special plan of redemption or that God exists as a Trinitarian unity consisting of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The only place we get that kind of knowledge is from the Bible. So, the knowledge we get from observing nature is a general revelation, but the knowledge we get from the Bible is a special revelation.

RD: Right. And we’ve stressed heavily in our first few episodes about miracles that God used miracles in the Bible to authenticate certain people as being messengers sent from Him. So, if those miracles didn’t actually occur as literal history it would take away an important channel that we have of verifying which messengers had actually been commissioned to bring us authentic knowledge from a supernatural God.

VK: So, far from being a peripheral element of the Bible stories the accounts of miracles are front and center as a key way for letting us know that God has made a special revelation to His people. How then, do we address the objection that the accounts of miracles can’t be trusted because they are stories that run counter to our experience? Miracles describe events that violate the laws of nature and since, in our experience, those laws can’t be violated we must view miracles as either impossible or they are events with a natural explanation we just don’t understand.

RD: And those are the most common objections that are lodged against miracles. They are physically impossible or they are just events that had a natural explanation that wasn’t covered in the Bible. So, let’s look at the objection that miracles are contrary to the laws of nature and therefore can’t occur. The first observation I would make is that that objection points to something very important. Miraculous occurrences can’t be explained by the normal operation of the laws of nature – so, if they have occurred – they are graphic evidence of someone or something that is supernatural. That is, of course, the reason such accounts were included in the Bible in the first place.

VK: So, how can we be sure that such miracles have occurred?

RD: The historicity of the miracle accounts in the Bible obviously hinges on the historicity of the books that contain them and, therefore, on the historical accuracy of the writer who recorded them.

VK: And on our last episode of Anchored by Truth we used the example of the book of Acts which most scholars agree was written by Luke. Sir William Ramsay was an archaeologist and biblical skeptic. He taught at the University of Edinburgh and believed that Bible writers made up many of the stories it contained. At first he thought the book of Acts was full of errors. To prove that Luke was a poor historian he traveled to Asia Minor to do on site investigations for himself. He felt he could discredit Luke’s unverifiable stories by checking the historical details that could be tested. Ramsay returned to Great Britain a believer. Every one of Luke’s facts checked out. As we’ve mentioned on Anchored by Truth before Luke even got the titles used within the Roman bureaucracy correct which was not easy because the Romans often rearranged their bureaucracy. A particularly striking example of Luke’s accuracy was his use of the term “politarch” for officials in Thessalonica. Until Ramsay’s investigation, the term was unknown in Greek literature outside Acts. Ramsay found five inscriptions with the term in the city. So far from proving that Luke was either a sloppy or imaginative historian Ramsay wound up proving that Luke was a very careful and accurate observer and historian.

RD: And Luke’s history included recording of many notable miracles like healings performed by the Apostles and even a resurrection performed by Paul. The central point is that Luke’s record of miracles is trustworthy because the other records he made of events are trustworthy.

VK: But not everyone will agree with that assessment will they? I mean many people might say Luke was careful about geography and politics but that doesn’t mean that he didn’t make up incidents about Jesus, Paul, or others to give his books more pizazz.

RD: More pizazz? Really? I don’t think Luke’s primary concern was clicks or likes. But nevertheless, let’s consider this. The books contained in the New Testament are all around 2,000 years old. The books of the Old Testament are obviously older. But just because those books are that old now doesn’t mean that they were that old when they were written - far from it. Most scholars believe that the gospels written by Matthew, Mark, and Luke were completed around the middle of the 1st century A.D. John is usually thought to have been the last of the gospels to be completed. Even then it is typically dated between 70 A.D. to 90 A.D. As such, it is likely that the books that contain the records of Jesus’ miracles were all composed within a few decades of his life and death. Similarly, the book of Acts is typically dated around 62 to 64 A.D because it makes no mention of the fall of Jerusalem which occurred in 70 A.D. and it’s highly unlikely a historian of Luke’s caliber would have ignored such a momentous event.

VK: In other words the first documents that contained records of all of these miracles were prepared well within the lifetimes of people who could have contested the accuracy of the reports of miracles. And Luke and the other writers knew that. They knew there were still plenty of people around who could have called out fabrications or false reporting. 

RD: Exactly. There is a tendency today to see the people who lived during Biblical times as being less sophisticated or more foolish than the people of today. There is a belief that because they were less advanced scientifically that somehow they were more credible or gullible. That’s a form of arrogance that manifests a type of recency bias. The people of Jesus’ day knew very well that you couldn’t feed thousands of people with a few loaves and a couple of fish. The accounts of Jesus feeding the multitudes contain the disciples own objections and doubts. It the gospel writers were really trying to manufacture a legendary account the last thing they would have included were incidents that embarrassed the most important of Jesus’ followers. But that is exactly what they did. Plus, if you read the accounts of miracles in the Bible you will see that the accounts themselves often contain what might be termed “un-designed confirmations.”

VK: So you’re thinking of many of the details contained in the stories themselves like the turning of water into wine. John didn’t just report this incident as happening somewhere where confirmation would have been impossible. He gave us a specific place – Cana of Galilee. And he gave us the details of the occasion. He tells us that it was at a wedding and that something embarrassing to the host was about to happen – they were about to run out of wine and that would have ruined the celebration.

RD: Yes. And John mentions that the wine was created from water poured into some large jugs that normally held water for ceremonial washing. So, while we can’t see for ourselves the water turning to wine, it is well known, even from secular historians, that these details are historically accurate. We can locate Cana on a map. It’s about 15 miles west of the Sea of Galilee. The laws prescribing the need for ceremonial washing were part of the Torah – the first five books of the Bible. The Jews held lengthy wedding feasts and celebrations that went on for days. Unlike today, where it’s more typical for only close family and friends to come, the Jews would invite large crowds. In small towns the whole village might be invited. These large crowds and lengthy celebrations would have made it easy for a host to run out of wine. Plus, when John wrote his account it’s possible that there would have been other people around who had actually attended the wedding who could have rebutted his account if he were lying.

VK: You also think that it is important to note that – in addition to having been written very close to the time the events actually occurred - the books of the Bible that we call the gospels and Acts circulated widely in the years following their completion. It’s not as though these books were hidden away like the Dead Sea Scrolls out in the desert so that errors or attempted deceptions couldn’t have been caught.

RD: Yes. We tend to be most familiar with the books of the Bible because they are our Bible. But they didn’t start out as being books of the Bible. They were mostly letters or individual accounts that were sent from person-to-person or read in the early churches. They received a lot of attention – so much so that the leaders of the earliest churches quoted from them liberally when they sent their own letters. It’s been said that you could reconstruct 95% of the New Testament just from using the quotations included by the church fathers in their own writings. Since the early church was faced with intense opposition almost from its inception if the gospels or other Apostolic writings contained obvious lies or mistakes they would have been called out and discredited – but they weren’t. If the earliest critics of the church weren’t able to expunge the records of miracles from the New Testament when they had a perfect opportunity to do so why do critics today think they’re in a better position to do so?

VK: Well, I think many critics might say that, even considering all that you’ve said, they still don’t believe that the accounts of miracles in the Bible can be true. They could say that they’ve never seen water turned into wine or a person’s shadow heal someone of a disease. What would you say to that observation?

RD: I would say that the Bible, its reports and records, are a form of evidence. We can validate that the content of our Bible has been reliably transmitted from the autographa (the original source documents) and we can test a huge number of the facts that the Bible relates – details of history, geography, culture, religious practices, and even names of specific people. When people refuse to accept the accuracy of those claims, their doubt or disbelief, is a personal evaluation. But as sincerely held as that evaluation or opinion may be it is not evidence. Doubting evidence is not evidence. Naturally, I recognize that this is one of the reasons that Bible critics will look for evidence to point out that there are historical details in the Bible that the Bible gets wrong. By casting doubt on certain details they hope to cast doubt on the entirety. That was what Sir William Ramsay set out to do and he was converted by what he learned. Nevertheless, not everyone will be and there are still many points of legitimate debate that scholars should continue to investigate. But it is important to note, that no one – neither Christian scholars nor secular historians can view the past. All anyone can do today is to study evidence that comes from the past and propose a reasonable interpretation of that evidence. And all people’s interpretations are viewed through a lens. So, it is no more reasonable to set aside a Christian’s interpretation because of their faith then it is to discount a non-believer’s interpretation because of their lack of faith.

VK: What you’re saying is that it is unreasonable to say that have a different set of rules for evaluating the evidence based on the interpreter’s viewpoint. All the evidence should be evaluated as objectively as possible. Naturally, it is impossible for any human being to avoid all subjectivity but what you’re saying is that neither a faith based viewpoint nor a non-believing viewpoint is inherently superior to the other?

RD: Exactly. If someone simply rejects the possibility of miracles having literally occurred because they’ve never experienced one or don’t believe it’s possible to suspend the operation of natural law, that’s not objectivity. It’s simply skepticism. It’s a form of anti-supernatural bias, which they’re entitled to hold, but it is not a bias which adds any weight to their conclusions. Whether or not a miracle occurred at any point in past time and space is essentially a historical question. And while current observations or science can help shed light on possibilities they cannot prove or disprove that a miracle occurred. And since the Bible is overwhelmingly confirmed to be a reliable historical document its observations are entitled to a presumption of accuracy. This is no different than if someone observed a crime today and was called to testify. Some observers with a past history of integrity and careful observation would be more credible that an observer who lacked that history.

VK: So, the main point is that someone who simply chooses to disbelieve the Bible’s accounts of miracles may not be persuaded a miracle occurred but their evaluation does not affect the historical fact of whether one did. Someone’s disbelief in miracles is their privilege but it does not constitute evidence which affects the historicity of the Bible’s miracle accounts. Sounds like a perfect time to close with prayer. Today let’s pray a prayer for our Christian brothers and sisters who live in lands where they are subject to hostility, oppression, or even death just for believing in Jesus as their savior. And let’s let the knowledge that there are such places in the world animate us to ensure that that condition is never replicated in our own country.

---- PRAYER FOR PERSECUTED CHRISTIANS

VK: We’d like to remind our audience that a lot of our radio episodes are linked together in series of topics so if they missed any episodes or if they just want to hear one again, all of these episodes are available on your favorite podcast app. To find them just search on “Anchored by Truth by Crystal Sea Books.”

If you’d like to hear more, try out crystalseabooks.com where “We’re not famous but our Boss is!”

(Bible Quotes from the New Living Translation)

The Gospel of John, Chapter 2, verses 1 through 10, New Living Translation