The Bible and Miracles: Fact or Fantasy?

Doug Focht, Jr.

Throughout the years, but especially of late, Bible critics have tried hard to discredit the Bible on historical grounds. Time and again criticisms are raised as to its historical worth; time and again those criticisms are found to be wanting and the Bible is vindicated. Even though the Bible continues to be historically verified again and again, it is never wanting for critics. No other religious book has been subjected to as much examination, criticisms and defamation as the Bible. Yet the critics pass away and the Bible remains. Were the words uttered by Jesus mere coincidence, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matt. 24:35)? Liberal theologians would like us to think so. They say that the words of Jesus were not written down until many years—decades—after His death. By then, memories had become clouded, and what was written was largely a combination of aging and forgetful minds and overactive imaginations. Those gospel writers made Jesus into something much bigger than He really was. So they say.

Why are the Bible's critics so fervent in their pronouncements, so persistent in their attacks? According to the Bible, Jesus requires of His followers things that most people are simply not willing to submit to. Any method or system that can dilute His message to something less than what is written also relieves the mind and the conscience of its responsibility to follow what is taught. From a historical approach, this seems quite easy to do. The argument goes like this:

1. The Bible has accounts of fantastic miracles: Moses parts the Red Sea, Joshua asks the sun to stand still, Hezekiah requests the sun to retrogress. Jesus feeds thousands from practically nothing, walks on water, raises the dead, calms the sea and so on. The pages of the Bible are filled with such events.

2. The kind of miracles that are recorded in the Bible do not happen today, can not be observed.

3. Because these things do not happen today, then they never did, and those who recorded those events are not credible historical witnesses; and since the entire book is written in a historical context, it should be understood in the same light as myth and philosophy. It is a “good book,” but nothing more.

In fairness to those who may be searching for truth and who themselves have questioned the authenticity of the Bible because of its miracles, let me add that many who are now believers once shared that same skepticism. “If the Bible didn't have all those crazy stories in it, it might be half-way believable,” is the way many think. But I submit to you that it is precisely those stories, as told, which make it improbable that the events were contrived.

Have you ever wondered why no other religious writings deal with miracles the way the Bible does? True, there are some books which have a few such tales, but not with the same scope or in the same surroundings as the Bible. There are at least four things that set the biblical miracles apart from myth and legend:

1. Unlike myths, biblical miracles are presented in a historical context, that is, in conjunction with actual historical events, many of which can be verified by archeology.

2. Miracles are presented in a simple, matter-of-fact style. No fanfare, sometimes not even a comment.

3. Miracles occur in a framework of reason and logic. There are no miracles just for the sake of miracles. They are not performed for show; they are not “magic tricks” designed to entertain the reader.

4. Miracles are performed in the presence of hundreds, sometimes thousands of witnesses; and many of the witnesses are still alive at the time the events are written down.

I would like to comment more specifically on this last point. Consider if you were writing a story of a great event, and you expected people to take you seriously, to believe what you were writing, would you fill your text with such stories if they really didn't happen? Let's put this in our own context. Even now, over 200 years after the fact, would anyone believe someone today who wrote that George Washington calmed the Delaware river and walked across it while his soldiers rowed? You see, the events of a nation are known and understood by that nation, even if they are not written down right away. Yet all the events of the Old Testament revolve around the nation of Israel. It was their history. They wrote it down. They believed it. Why? True, legends are handed down also, but not with the same precision and with the same consistency as biblical miracles. Legends are full of wonder and mystery; biblical miracles on the other hand are straight-forward and logical: The Red Sea parted to show God's power and care in delivering Israel from an oppressor against which they themselves were powerless; Jesus healed the paralytic in order to prove that He had authority to forgive sins (Mark 2:9–11); He fed the multitudes in order to prove He had the means to feed their souls as well (in John 6, compare verses 1–14 with 26–35).

With Jesus, the picture becomes even more intriguing. Liberal scholars assert that the first stories about Jesus were not written until about 40–50 years after His death. Though there is abundant evidence to show that the gospels were written much earlier, rather than argue that point here, let's assume that they are correct, and use a 20th century example to test their theory.

There was a great Hindu teacher in India named Mohandes (or Mahatma) Ghandi, who though a political activist for his country's independence, was a man of peace, a great teacher, a legend in his own time. He died in 1948, almost 50 years ago. Today, not many of the younger generation even know who he was, but there was movie made about his life. Now, since the “scholars” argue that the stories about Jesus were “made up” 50 years or so after His death, and since it's been about 50 years since Ghandi died, let's put ourselves in the same place as people of the 1st century and suppose that the movie had made up stories about Ghandi. Suppose the movie portrayed Ghandi teaching and doing the same things the gospels say Jesus taught and did? Suppose for example, in the movie Ghandi said, as Jesus said, “I am the way the truth, the life. No one comes to God except through me” (cf. John 14:6)? Or, “unless you believe I am the Messiah, you will all die in your sins” (John 8:24). Then, in order to prove his claims, the movie would show how Ghandi healed thousands from incurable diseases; how he fed thousands using just a few small fishes and some bread. And so on. Would you believe these things on the mere say-so of the movie-makers or a small handful of his followers?

Taking this one step further, try reading through the gospels, imagining that they are a new publication, 50 years after the fact. Only instead of reading Jesus, substitute Ghandi. Then ask yourself: WHO WOULD BELIEVE IT? I suppose there will always be a few who would believe anything, but would you? Would you be willing to give up all your passion and pleasures to follow Ghandi? Would you give your life for him, even though he died 50 years ago? Would you believe he died for you? That he was resurrected? Would you believe anything about those accounts? Even after 50 years, or 100 years or 1,000 years, no one could have fabricated a story as that told in the gospels with the expectation that people would believe it. Yet believe it they did. Why? Because it happened, that's why! And the apostles that preached the gospel must have demonstrated its truth by performing the same miracles. It's the only answer that makes sense. No one in their right mind would have concocted those stories, because no one in their right mind would believe them without reason. Rather than a cause for disbelief, the miracles of the Bible therefore are a powerful testimony to the One whose power not only performed them, but preserved the accounts that record them. Truly, Jesus' saying regarding the permanence of His word was no fluke, no coincidence. The word of God will never pass away!

—From Growing in Grace, Vol. 1 #11, August 11, 1996