In This Issue

• MIRACLES AND MODERN SCHOLARSHIP
• UPCOMING GOSPEL MEETING SCHEDULE
• MORE INFORMATION...

MIRACLES AND MODERN SCHOLARSHIP

The approach of many to the biblical record of the miracles of our Lord goes something like this: The miracles are not to be taken as literal accounts of what happened, but rather as stories designed to illustrate general truths. The notion behind such approaches as this is that the Bible itself is not to be taken as a literal revelation of the mind of God so much as it is a book of general principles to be used, not as a law or pattern, but as the general framework for our faith in Christ. In this article we shall examine this matter with a view to giving it a proper hearing, using the words of one of these "modern scholars", and comparing them with the teachings of the Bible about itself. 

William Barclay, in a book entitled "THE MIND OF JESUS", adopts the position that the miracles of Jesus "are...signs which enable us to see, not so much what Jesus did, as what Jesus does. And, if it be insisted that such stories be taken with crude and stubborn literalism, then the greater part of their value and meaning is lost" (page 85). Of course the Bible does not represent to us that it tells us "not so much what Jesus did", but just the opposite: "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name" (John 20:30-31). Notice that though the subject concerns the things Jesus did that are not recorded, the passage clearly implies that the things which are recorded are things which Jesus did. In the introduction to his Gospel Luke said: "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed" (Luke 1:1-4). We do not get the idea here that Luke is recording "not so much what Jesus did", but rather that he is recording what Jesus did. To represent the record as being an account of what Jesus did and then to proceed to tell us "not so much what Jesus did" would be a falsehood, a deception. The Bible claims to be a "record" of the life of Jesus (in the Gospels), and the approach we must take is that of considering the record of His life. If the Bible fails to represent truthfully and properly what Jesus did then the Bible intentionally misleads us and distorts the facts. This would be certainly the source of confusion, (i.e., saying one thing and then doing another); but did not Paul write: "For God is not the author of confusion" (I Corinthians 14:33)? 

Mr. Barclay continues: "To illustrate this, we shall take the greatest of these stories [i.e. the miracles of Jesus], the story of the raising of Lazarus" (page 85). The point he seeks to illustrate concerns the assertion cited above, that miracles are not literal accounts of real events, but, as he here says, "stories" designed to teach truth. I do not dispute the contention that there are lessons to be learned from the miracles of Jesus, but I do reject the notion that the record of them preserved on the pages of the New Testament is fiction, mere fables and legends based on half-truths and imagination. Mr. Barclay continues: "If this story is taken as a literal account of a raising from the dead, we have to ask the question, Why did the other Gospel writers omit it, especially when John implies that it was the moving cause of the Crucifixion (John 11:47-54)" (page 85)? As to why the other writers did not record it we do not know. But, why should they? How many times must God tell us something for us to get it? Other accounts of the life of Christ tell us of things omitted by John, are we to reject these? John does not tell us (specifically) of the birth of Jesus, are we to assume that He never was born? We have already noted that John did not claim to record all that Jesus did (John 20:30-31), and as his record is not complete so none of the others are either. Hear John again: "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written" (John 21:25). Some things needed to be repeated by the other writers in order to complete the purpose of their writing, other things could be left out without doing damage to the record they were making. As to the assertion that this miracle was "the moving cause of the Crucifixion", this reads too much into the words of John. This miracle, coupled with the other miracles performed by Jesus, and these coupled with the doctrine He brought, moved the Jews to seek His death. This alone would be enough to demonstrate the Deity of Jesus, if argued properly; but so would any other legitimate miracle. To place undue emphasis on this one account is to miss the point of the record: Jesus demonstrated power over all forces which are brought to bear upon life. This illustrates one such force and His mastery over it. 

Mr. Barclay continues: "The story is the casket which contains the gem; the story is the presentation of Jesus as the Resurrection and the Life. But nothing can be clearer than that the saying is not physically and literally true. 'He who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live' -- but he who believes in Jesus Christ does not come back to physical life within this world of space and time. 'Whoever lives and believes in me shall never die' -- but death is not arrested for the man who believes in Jesus Christ; the hurrying years do not wait for him" (page 85). As the casket is used to hold the remains of a lifeless body, so the Bible would be but a lifeless compilation of legends and fables if we agree with Mr. Barclay's contention as argued herein. If we cannot trust John to be telling the truth about the raising of Lazarus from the dead, how are we to trust that the lesson he is allegedly teaching is worthy of our hearing? John does not say that he is "illustrating a point", but that he is recording what Jesus did. It is true that we do not here and now return from the dead, but it is also true that we shall someday: "Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation" (John 5:28-29). Mr. Barclay continues: "Taken physically and literally, that great saying of Jesus is not true. If it be taken physically and literally Jesus is in fact promising something which he cannot and does not perform" (page 85). To take the story physically and literally is to take it as it is offered, part of the life lived by Jesus. To take it in any other way is to read into the record that which is not there. Jesus had earlier claimed power over death: "...The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live" (John 5:25). That He gives spiritual life is not denied by this writer, but such a claim as this demands proof of a physical sort, and that proof is found in the record before us. To assert that Jesus "cannot" do that which John said He did is to put one in opposition to John. Mr. Barclay then contends that the facts are one way and John that they are another and we are left to choose between the two as to which account is more plausible. The choice does not appear to me to be all that difficult. 

After "concluding" that the saying of Jesus, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live; and he that liveth and believeth in me shall never die" (John 11:25f) is spiritually true but not physically true, Mr. Barclay offers an explanation of the account of John: "Surely what is meant is something like this. Lazarus had committed some terrible sin, a sin which had brought to the home at Bethany a grief like the grief for death, a sin which he would never have committed, if Jesus had been present, a sin which had made his name stink in the nostrils of men, a sin which had broken the hearts of his sisters, a sin which had left him spiritually dead, and even unable to repent. Then comes Jesus -- and all is healed and all is changed. Lazarus is raised to life anew. Once again Jesus had shown himself the friend of sinners, to the amazed joy of Martha and Mary and Lazarus, and to the bitter resentment and cold criticism and venomous hatred of the orthodox good people of his day. Surely this is the supreme conversion story of the New Testament" (page 86). Whether Lazarus sinned or not is not explicitly stated (though from other passages [Romans 3:10, 23, etc.] we know that he, and all men, have sinned). That this is a "conversion story" is not even once averred by John. John said, "Jesus therefore groaning in himself cometh to the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it" (John 11:38). This is an account of what Jesus actually did, or it is a fabrication. There is no way to make it a "spiritual" account and still have it an honorable representation of Gospel Preaching. John tells it for the truth. The Bible did not say that "his name" gave off a foul odor, but: "Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days" (John 11:39). There is a distinct representation that the physical body of Lazarus was in a grave with a stone over it and that it was in the process of decay. 

Mr. Barclay continues: "If this story is simply the story of the raising of a dead man in the village of Bethany somewhere about the year AD 28 or 29, then it has nothing to do with us; it cannot and it does not happen now; but if it is the story of the defeat of the death caused by sin, then it is telling of something which Jesus Christ can do, and does, every day in life" (page 86). If it is the story of the raising of a dead man long ago, then it is what John said it was, a record of the life of Jesus. As to having to do with us, the story demonstrates the power of Jesus over death. It is one of the greatest miracles He performed (from a human standpoint). It confirms His position as God in human flesh. It is an argument for the Deity of Jesus. Mr. Barclay continues: "There is little use in a Jesus who did things almost two thousand years ago, but who has ceased to do them now. What we need is a Christ who still does things. There is little relevance in the story of a Jesus who raised a dead man to life in Bethany nineteen hundred years ago, but who never does that now; there is every relevance in a Christ who to this day daily raises men from the death of sin and liberates them to eternal life. There is little relevance in a Jesus who stilled a storm on the Sea of Galilee nineteen hundred years ago, and who stills no storms today, for there are those whose loved ones have been taken by the storms in spite of the most intense prayers; there is every relevance in a Christ who stills the storms which rise within the hearts of men today, and in whose presence today every storm becomes a calm within the heart. There is little relevance in a Jesus who turned water into wine nineteen hundred years ago, and who never does so today; there is every relevance in a Jesus in whose presence today there enters into life a new quality of radiance and joy and exhilaration which is like the turning of water into wine" (page 87). The relevance of the miracles is in that they demonstrate the power of Jesus. How much faith could we place in one who claimed to perform such feats in the long ago but never did? Placed in context, the final three verses of John 20 answer the questions of Mr. Barclay: "Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." The miracles of Jesus provide a record which warrants faith. They are not stories and fables, they are the facts. We have no need to take the divine element from them, indeed to do so would be sin (cf. Revelation 21:18-19). 

--Tim Smith, Enon Endeavor, Webb, AL

The devil is willing for you to profess Christianity as long as you don't live it.

MORE INFORMATION...