Should the Miracles in the Bible be Interpreted Literally?
Numbers 20:1–11 records a miraculous event. Examining accounts like this opens up important questions for the Bible reader. If a historian allows for the possibility of the miraculous, doesn’t that throw history up for grabs? Couldn’t readers invoke a miraculous explanation for all kinds of things that happened in the past?
Not at all. When studying ancient documents, you have to apply historical criteria to determine the best explanation for what actually occurred. For example, Aesop’s fables describe animals talking in ancient Greece. Well, did they talk or didn’t they? When we examine the genre of Aesop’s fables, we find that these stories were not meant to be interpreted literally. Besides, there are no credible eyewitness accounts, and there’s no corroboration from other sources. So the historian would say there’s no good evidence that Aesop’s fables report actual historical events.
On the other hand, the miracles of the Old Testament, such as Moses providing water from a rock, seem to fit the historical narrative as do the miracles of the New Testament. For example, regarding the miracle of Jesus’ resurrection, we find that the Gospels fit into the genre of ancient biographies. We know that ancient biographies were intended to be regarded as history to varying degrees. We’ve got early accounts that can’t be explained away by legendary development, we’ve got multiple independent sources, we’ve got eyewitnesses, and we’ve got a degree of corroboration from outsiders. We’ve also got enemy attestation. So weighing the historical criteria, there’s no reason to believe Aesop’s fables are true, but there are good reasons to believe the resurrection happened.
This week's essay is drawn from "The Case for Christ Study Bible" by Lee Strobel.
|
