St. John Studies

As you read Paul Little’s chapter on Scripture and Science, you see that the whole chapter is based on the following words at the end: “In everything we read and everything we hear, we must ask ‘What is this person’s presupposition?’, so that we may interpret conclusions in this light.  There is no such thing as total objectivity.”

I would agree.

In my experience I have been close enough to the study of science to know that even the most factual presentation of data allows for some subjective interpretation.

Over the years I have tried to “straddle the fence” when it comes to the origin of man. Being a person with some education I know of Darwin’s Origin of Species even though I have not read it.  I have heard discussions of the work and I know the book’s “presupposition”.  You might say I am a theistic evolutionist.

Being a theistic evolutionist means that I believe in God but I also have some positive regard for science.

When it comes to evolution, a theistic evolutionist believes that God created the first spark of life and then directed His creation through the process of evolution. God is the originator and God is the designer but science is part of the process too.

Some Christians reject the theistic evolutionary position. They argue that one cannot “straddle the fence.”

They argue that God would not use such an inefficient mechanism to design the world. Why would God want to interfere with the development of life on a constant and long-term basis?  Jacques Monod, writer of the book War Against God states that natural selection is the “blindest and most cruel way of evolving new species.”

What happens to the Garden of Eden for the theistic evolutionist?

The Garden becomes an allegory and if that is the case, what does the sin dynamic in the Garden mean? By sin dynamic, I mean the fact that Adam and Eve chose to eat of the apple and they chose to introduce sin and sinning into the life of man.

Jesus is analogous to Adam in the Garden of Eden and the sacrifice of Jesus brings us to see that justification and sanctification are possible due to the death on the cross.

Critics of theistic evolution therefore say that “If Adam was not a historical individual, and if his fall into sin is not historical, then the biblical doctrines of sin and of Christ’s atonement for it collapse.”

What does this view, this attack on theistic evolution rest upon? It rests upon the “entire message of the Bible” [David Noebel, Thinking Like a Christian].

What does the view of theistic evolution rest upon? The idea that God is so powerful that He is capable of using anything, even evolution to generate all species.

Noebel states that theistic evolution “is unacceptable for the Christian. That it is our contention that the proper Christian worldview requires a belief in the Creator as He is literally portrayed in Genesis.”

Why has theistic evolution come about? Because many Christians who respect science don’t want to throw it totally away when they read the Bible.  They seek to find a way to acknowledge science and also have God as their Savior.

Noebel says you can’t have it both ways: “Christians who wish to integrate faith and reason would do well to abandon evolution as a rational explanation for the origin of the species.”

Does David Noebel have a presupposition? Of course he does.

He takes the Bible literally.

Is this wrong?

No.

Are there other ways of looking at the Bible? Other ways of conceptualizing God?  Other ways of conceptualizing the origins of man?

Yes.

We go back to the beginning of the chapter “Do Science and Scripture Agree?” and see that Paul Little writes “Most of the apparent conflict stems from making the Bible say things it really does not say and from scientism, a philosophic interpretation of scientific facts.” Scientists make statements beyond the facts and Christians make the Bible say what it does not say.

Remember, objectivity does not exist; subjectivity always enters the picture.

Who is right? Who is wrong?

You decide.

Based on your presupposition.

To be honest, it is all about worldview.

Paul Little says this “The Christian can never forget that God can act in miraculous ways and in the past He often chose to. The Bible discloses that He was involved in His original creation and continues in a wise and purposeful relationship with it.  While there are no problems for which there is yet no explanation, there is no fundamental conflict between science and scripture.”

How can Mr. Little write that?

Don’t Christians have conflicts with science all the time? What about global warming?  What about the origin of man?  What about the age of the earth?

How Mr. Little can say what he says is because the conflicts we perceive are really only conflicts between interpretations of facts.

Let’s take the main idea we have discussed all week; the origin of man.

What point of view will the non-believer scientist bring to the information about the origin of man? That determines how he will interpret the facts.  What does his worldview do about the information about the origin of man?  1) There is no God.  2) Everything happened by chance.

What point of view will the believer bring to information about the origin of man? 1) There is a God.  2) God initiated creation and is still actively involved with His creation.

It is all about world view.

Worldview is the ideology, philosophy, theology, movement or religion that provides an overarching approach to understanding God, the world and man’s relationship to God and the world. Christianity provides a consistent explanation of all the facts of reality.  David Noebel in his book Thinking Like a Christian states that “Christianity is the embodiment of Christ’s claim that He is “the way, the truth and the life [John 14:6].  When we say “this is the Christian way,” we mean “this is the way Christ would have us act in such a situation.”

It is a big deal to try to think and act as Jesus instructed us to act.

The chapter this week is about science and that discipline has provided challenges for the Christian worldview for many, many years but challenges come from many parts of the culture today other than science [education—poor student behavior in school, sociology—the breakup of the traditional family etc.].

The vast majority of Christians today don’t concern themselves about worldview.

But worldview is your core. Worldview is your foundation.  Worldview is what you are rooted in.

Paul in his epistle to the Colossians [2] says that those who have received Christ “are to be rooted and built up in Him, strengthened in the faith as they were taught.” Continuing on in Colossians, the Christian must see to it that no one takes him “captive through philosophy and empty deceit based on human tradition, based on the elemental forces of the world and not based on Christ.”

The primary source for the Christian worldview is The Bible. We regard God’s Word as Divine Inspiration, God’s special revelation to man.  When you look at the world through the lens of the Bible, the world begins to take on a different hue.

However many today try to compartmentalize their lives. In certain situations, they behave in a secular fashion and in others they behave in a sacred fashion.  They see no problem with that.

But there is. God wants more of us than compartmentalization.  He wants us to be wholly devoted to Him all the time.

It is hard. I will be the first to admit that.

Jesus came to earth and presented an impossible goal for all of us. He asks a lot of us as we maneuver our way through this life.  Even as He distilled all the commandments down to  “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets”.   That is a very high bar.

I would like to propose that one of the basic things that will happen to a person as they become a sincere follower is they will begin to develop a Christian worldview, even if they are not sure what worldview means.

What will you say to the inquisitor who asks you about the origin of man? [if you have that Christian worldview]

1)There is a God. 2) God initiated creation and is still actively involved with His creation.

Presupposition: a thing tacitly assumed beforehand at the beginning of a line of argument or course of action [dictionary.com].

Theory: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained [dictionary.com].

Scientific theory: a matter of the highest of probability based on the data available.  There are no absolutes in it.  Furthermore, science is a train that is constantly moving.   Yesterday’s generalization is today’s discarded hypothesis [Paul Little, 103].

Herein lies the problem, the moving presupposition, the theory that is no longer relevant.

Science is only one way to find the truth and science focuses on physical things. That’s ok but the explanatory power is limited—to physical things. What about what Paul Little refers to as nonmaterial realities?

What about God? What about creation?

In the limited space we have in this post, it would be folly to try to tackle in any substantial way topics as vast as the questions above but we can discuss Christian presuppositions. If scientists have them, can’t we have them also?  Of course we can.

Evolutionary scientists have what Little calls “three views of evolution” or three presuppositions or theories. One is evolutionism which holds that the universe has been evolving forever on the basis of natural processes, mutation and natural selection.  Secondly, there is microevolution which is a change or development within a species [chromosome changes, gene mutations or hybridization].  Thirdly is macroevolution where genetic information is transferred to a higher, more complex classification.  Depending on your scientific view of evolution, these three theories explain your view of the world.

Christians assume the earth must have been created many thousands of years before the birth of Christ. And some Christians may struggle with what that date would be but there are two presuppositions that override any theories put forth by scientists.  1. God supernaturally and deliberately created the heavens and the earth and deliberately created the first man and first woman.  2.Scientists can quit looking for the “missing link” between man and lower life forms.  Man did not evolve from some animal ancestor.

What about the thousands of years controversy? The Bible says God created the earth in six days and rested on the seventh.  How could that be?

Well it all depends on how a day is defined. I always thought that the writers of the Bible were wise in how they took God’s thoughts and put them on the page.  In this case, maybe Moses wrote Genesis so man in his time could conceptualize the passage of time.  Let’s not forget that the Hebrew people possibly did not have the scientific capability to think back in thousands of years and Little proposes the Hebrew word “day” could mean a passage of time, rather than a 24 hour day.    When one turns to other parts of the Bible, God’s time does not seem to be as man’s time.  Psalms 90: 4 “A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.”  2 Peter 3:8 “But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.”

Should we as Christians be obsessed with pinpointing the origin of man down to the year? I don’t think so.  Let the scientists debate this based on scientific evidence.  Just recognize that scientific evidence can be superseded by more recently discovered scientific evidence, presuppositions can be presupposed by more current presuppositions and theories can be re-conceptualized as new systems are discovered that have explanatory power.

We see the limitations of science in the constantly moving train. To rely on scientific theory as a way to explain God or the origin of man is a problem because it is so tentative.  This is why it is so dangerous to try to explain the Bible using scientific theory.

Little explains pretty clearly in these words: “If the Bible becomes wedded to today’s scientific theories, what will happen to it when science, ten years from now has shifted?”

Toot! Toot!

What is real?

That is not a question we ask every day but when you begin to think about science and religion, the discussion must eventually go there.

Why?

Things that can be explained by the laws/theories of science can be termed as ‘real’. This is probably behind the logic that scientists use to categorize ghosts/spirits as supernatural as there are no scientific explanations to justify their existence.

Hard core scientists want real things to be measureable and objective, not subjective.

Where does that leave God for many scientists?

In the realm of the ghost, spirits and the supernatural.

Are there other means than laboratory methodology to explain knowledge?

Knowledge of God for example?

Can we put God in the laboratory and prove His existence? I am afraid not.  God “is a personal Being who has revealed Himself in love and can be known in personal presence” [Little, 97].

I find it very amusing to read of the originators of contemporary scientific thinking. Little says the originators were from the 16^th Century and they were all Christians.  The revolution they led in the science world was a break from Greek polytheistic concepts that viewed the world as irregular and incapable of systematic study.  They began to see regularity and the more they were able to prove that, the more they were able to have presuppositions which became the beginnings of scientific knowledge.

What were the underpinnings of their ideas about the world? Regularity was caused by an Intelligent Designer…God.

All the scientists of the 16^th Century were Christian. That needs to be emphasized.

Today some science has begun to deny the existence of God because of His subjective nature. Science and the scientific method are the only ways to truth.  Maybe some have begun to worship scientific method and not God.

Little states “Science can tell us how something works but not why it works that way. Whether there is any purpose in the universe can never be answered for us by science.  As one writer put it, ‘Science can give us the ‘know how’ but it cannot give us the ‘know-why.’”

Maybe the Bible falls short on the hows but it clearly gives us the whys.

Little believes that what is needed for the scientist and the theologian is humility. Instead of thinking that man will be able to explain everything in the universe, it would be best to admit that this will never happen.  A famous quote about science is “the scientist has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians …”   The theologian can gloat that God is not only the Creator of the world but the sustainer.  That the universe would fall apart if not for God.  That’s a viable position but the theologians should admit that science is making strides in explaining more and more about this world.

Little says that there is a meeting of the minds between science and religion as more and more scientific advances do emphasize that life did not come by “blind chance, but by intelligent mind, as the result of prodigious thought….Recent discoveries would argue for theism rather than the opposite.”

I think Little is right. The most appropriate attitude of thinking in science and theology should be humility.  Science is real.  We can point to many advances we have in our world today due to science.  I lead people in prayer a lot as a Sunday School teacher and a phrase I am always using about someone facing surgery is to surround that person with peace and comfort and the doctors with knowledge and skill.  We want to have the scientific advances we have in our world today.  Ask anyone who is sick and in need of help from the medical community.

I just want leading thinkers to have the attitude of the 16^th century scientific revolutionaries.  Little says “they were convinced they were thinking God’s thoughts after Him” [Little, 97].

Paul Little’s chapter on “Does Science and Scripture Agree” is a conundrum for me.

I like to throw in the fancy words to make people think I have some sense. When it comes to science, I lack a lot of scientific sense.  I avoided science as much as I could in college.  I have a layman’s curiosity about the Bible but I am not seminary trained at all.  Hence, I am weak in theology.

Words like conundrum serve as my smoke screen.

But as Mr. Little discusses the topic for the week, I find it interesting that he does not denounce science, nor does he uphold theology. He says the conflict between the two is the blame of both the scientist and the theologian.

Let’s lay out his explanation.

Scientists like objectivity.   That’s why they are so driven by data.  That’s why the experiment is so important for them.  Data or results show a trend.  Experiments with controlled variables are supposed to mean something.  So where do scientists cause controversy?  When they speak outside of their findings.  Little points to the very popular Astronomer Carl Sagan.  I remember him when he was on television.  He popularized astronomy and science, making it more interesting and accessible to the masses [by the way, I took astronomy in college and absolutely hated it; made a C, I think].

Sagan is used as an example of scientism or making philosophical statements about science that are not fact based. When he said “The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be…does it not make sense to worship the sun and the stars?”  Here he is going way beyond the facts of science.  Maybe he meant well but you can easily see where people of the Bible would take offense at this statement because he gets into the theology of nature worship.

Before we go too far, the people of the Bible go too far also.   We like to take our beliefs and make them scientific.  This of course rankles men and women of science.  Some think that Bishop James Ussher’s date of 4004 BC is the date of creation.  “James Ussher (or Usher; 4 January 1581 – 21 March 1656) was the Irish Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland between 1625 and 1656. He was a prolific scholar and church leader, who today is most famous for his chronology that sought to establish the time and date of the creation as ‘the entrance of the night preceding the 23rd day of October… the year before Christ 4004;  that is, around 6 pm on 22 October 4004 BC.’”  Through meticulous calculation he “determined” that this date is it; the year when God started it all.  Scientists are quick to point out that Bishop Ussher’s date is of course not correct, with many pieces of pre-4004 BC fossilized evidence to bolster their case.   That did not keep the date from making it into some English Bibles but those Bibles were not based on any original texts [just Ussher’s popularity in the 17^th Century].  This did not keep the date from becoming an example of science vs theology.

Little says “If we limit ourselves to what the Bible actually says and to what the scientific facts actually are, we shrink the area of controversy enormously.

However there are so many well-meaning souls out there; people who have such a firm belief in the importance of science that they take science into the area of philosophy or theology. And there are so many well-meaning Christians out there; people who want to make pseudo-scientific statements to make religious ideas sound data driver.

And then there are blokes like me… dilettantes who encounter conundrums and we expound on ideas when we should not.

From my readers…

I ask for your forgiveness…

I spent thirty-six years in a college environment. It was a small college.  It was so small when I arrived in 1977 that we could take all of the faculty and put them in a reasonably medium-sized room.  We had our own offices (which was nice) but we were not departmentalized in my early days. When I left the college in 2013, we were departmentalized.  That means that the humanities people had offices in their own building in their own area.  Scientists were in another building, in their own departmental area.

My next door neighbor in 1977 was a physics professor*. A few feet down from him in the hallway was a biology professor*.

They tolerated the humanities guy at first but as the years went by, I got to know them both pretty well. I got to be their friend.

They were collegial, by that I mean they got along as professional teachers teaching their subject matter but I found out that they did not see eye-to-eye on some basic things.

The physics teacher had what I would call a more secular worldview regarding his view of science. Before we go any further, he was a Christian in his spiritual life but in his science life, he felt duty bound to give a scientific point of view as he presented his material.  What do I mean when I say a scientific point of view?   He did not inject religion into his course work .  He felt that to take Christian concepts into the science classroom was not appropriate.  In short, science and Christianity don’t mix.  Don’t get me wrong.  He did not advocate against Christianity but he felt that science as a subject matter was adequate for explaining physics and there was no need for God in his classroom.

On the other hand, the biology professor was a creationist.

I remember the physics teacher getting very irritated a few times over the years because he just did not think like the biology professor. I pressed him on the issue of creationism and he said he just could not deny the science and wondered about his biology colleague.

Keep in mind that this guy was a Christian and went to a local church. He was my friend and a very good man.

Paul Little says that scientists and Christians disagree all the time, from the church’s persecution of Galileo to the Scopes trial of 1925. Sometimes scientists don’t agree either.

What were the physics professor and the biology professor disagreeing about, the most contentious issue in science: origins.

People with a Christian worldview struggle to reconcile their faith with the Bible and the “fact” that man and all living things evolved from a single speck of life. The biology professor could not accept that; that person wanted God to be the creator of the first glimmer of life on earth.  It goes further than that though.  People with a Christian worldview don’t buy into the notion of natural selection.  If one did, that would make the Garden of Eden just an allegory and the basic lesson of sin in this world would not be relevant.  Life would all be founded on survival of the fittest.

Scientific thinking is an interesting way to see the world if you don’t make an effort to mix some theology into the thought process. Science rests on “presuppositions” that have been proven to be “factual” by repeated observation or replication.  All my life I have spent time around scientists who feel they have a grasp of the facts of life and they are “pushing back the veil of ignorance” by their scientific exploration.

But they don’t have that grasp totally.

They have a grasp of facts as they exist now. Theory is based on facts that exist now.

Sometimes the facts don’t pan out. The scientist notes an aberration.  That aberration may occur over and over and soon it becomes a new fact.

Well known aberrations that became facts are: the Black Death was not spread by coughing, the world is not flat and the earth is not the center of the universe.

This week we will discuss some of the conflict that occurs in the battle between science and Scripture.

We have seen that conflict even occurs between scientists.

Why discuss this?

Science has been used for many years to undermine the Bible and many doubters use science to make their case against Christians.

Many people who have these conflicting views do not get along as well as my physics friend and the biology professor.   For our sake as Christians it may be good to have some thinking about this topic to help us in times when people challenge our worldview.

*Names will be omitted to protect my innocent friends.

**I hope to receive grace from my science friends as I offer simple explanations for their complex academic disciplines.

This has been one of those books.

You know, one of those books that are hard to study but you know you need to.

Let’s pause a moment and consider the title…Know Why You Believe.  Let’s consider the book and it’s purpose.

I was in a Bible study the other night and the teacher was doing a good job of asking questions. The class was pretty big which naturally can inhibit some response from more reticent people, so maybe that was what was going on.  As he asked question after question, some people did the “look in the book” response.

I am a teacher in the classroom with thirty-six years of experience and I know that look.

The students either do not know the answer or they are too scared to speak up and they are pretending to find the answer in the book in front of them. They scour the pages looking for the answer. When I was a teacher, I would make students uncomfortable by commenting on seeing the tops of their heads and many times I would pause and say “Ok, I am going to wait it out.  I won’t say a word until someone tries to give me an answer.”

The Bible teacher the other night did not do that. He was very graceful in handling the situation and certainly did not want to embarrass anyone.  He did not do the cruel things I did in my past.

However his questions were about Jesus and the book they were looking into was the Bible.

Should we not know the answers? Should we not feel comfortable enough to venture good guesses?

Let’s pause before we plunge into the final four chapters of Paul Little’s book and ask about the purpose of this little book. It is to give Christians a good beginning foundation with questions that people may have about our faith.

Are the issues the book deals with easy to comprehend? No.  Are the issues the book deals with designed to make us comfortable?  No.  Are the issues the book deals with designed to give us a thoughtful basis for our faith?  Yes.

People who don’t believe in God think that Christianity does not make sense so Little includes a chapter on the rationality of our faith. Next is the basic idea that there is no God.  How do we answer that one when that question is posed by an unbeliever?  “Is Jesus God?” is a related question in Chapter 3.  Then the all-important question “Did Christ Rise from the Dead?”   If we can’t answer that question well, many believe Christianity falls apart.  We got into the great debate on the Bible being God’s word and saw that many did not see it as such.  Following up on that, I wrote on the reliability of the Bible documents in Chapter 6.  Archaeology was a challenging chapter because archaeologists prefer to think of themselves as scientists and believe their discoveries are merely evidence.  This past week, we discussed the miracles and how skeptics doubt that they really occurred.

What does Paul Little’s book do for us? He makes us think about our faith.

Mr. Little spent his life defending the Bible. He went to college campuses and spoke to some of the most inquisitive minds in America.  He went to college campuses and confronted the doubts that people had.   He went to college campuses and bolstered the faith of many students who were away from home and away from their home church.

I spent a lot of my life on a college campus and it is a “free thought zone”, a place where ideas can be discussed freely and openly. It is also a place where people have a lot of doubt as they are exposed to ideas that are very foreign from their previous lives.  Beliefs and values come into question for the very first time.

As Christians how do we learn to defend our faith from those who doubt it? As Christians how do we develop a solid foundation on which to base our lives?  As Christians how do we have the ready answers to express the basics of our faith in Bible study?

First of all, we have to realize that thinking is a good thing. Secondly, we need to be active in seeking out answers [yes that means reading one of those books that are hard to study but you know you need to].  Thirdly, we need to speak up.

Abraham Lincoln is quoted as saying “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”

If we are Christian students and Christian teachers, we don’t make people who respond to questions feel like fools. We just look them in the eye and say “Thank you for your answer.”

Next week:  Do science and scripture agree?

Are there any reliable records for miracles in the Bible?

Well that depends on what you call reliable. It depends on what you regard as evidence.  It depends on whether you are inclined to believe God’s Word or not.

Skeptics will always question the Bible for many of the reasons we have discussed in this blog in many posts this past month.

When one looks at the evidence for the miracles, there seems to be some convincing proof that they existed.

Paul Little cites Bernard Ramm from his book Protestant Evidences.  Ramm finds five compelling reasons that miracles did actually occur.

First of all, many miracles were done in public. Not all of them were such as Jesus walking on the water in front of his Disciples or Jesus changing water into wine. But Jesus fed the masses with only 2 fish and a few loaves of bread.  Many saw Jesus heal the man born blind  while they were both at the Pool at Bathesda. The Jewish religious leaders were upset with Jesus because they knew that word of Jesus’ miracles was getting out despite the fact that Jesus did not try to publicize them.

Secondly, one of the best things to do to make a skeptic become a believer is to perform a miracle in front of the skeptic. Think about it.  Take someone who is critical and do something in front of them that they disbelieve.  It takes strength of will, but the skeptic can add credibility to your actions.  They want to pick you apart.  They are looking for the sleight of hand.  But what if the miracle is real and they have to admit it.  That’s powerful evidence.

Thirdly, Ramm states that Jesus performed miracles over a long period of time, involving a great variety of powers. He proved He had power over nature when He calmed the storm.  He had power over disease when He healed lepers.  He had power over demons when He cast them out.  He had power of knowledge when He met Nathanael under a fig tree and He had the power of creation when He fed 5000 from two fish and a few loaves.  He even had the power to create sight for a man born blind when sight is the result of many years of human growth.  He had the power to conquer death with the raising of Lazarus from the dead.

No disrespect but Jesus was not a “one trick pony.” He had multiple powers.

Fourth, Jesus left people who testified to his powers in the Bible.   After healing the man born blind, that man and his parents were questioned by the Pharisees.  Read the dialogue from John 9 “Therefore the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. ‘He put mud on my eyes,’ the man replied, ‘and I washed, and now I see.’   Some of the Pharisees said, ‘This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath.’  But others asked, ‘How can a sinner perform such signs?’ So they were divided.  Then they turned again to the blind man, ‘What have you to say about him? It was your eyes he opened.’  The man replied, ‘He is a prophet.’  They still did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight until they sent for the man’s parents.  ‘Is this your son?’ they asked. ‘Is this the one you say was born blind? How is it that now he can see?’  ‘We know he is our son,’ the parents answered, ‘and we know he was born blind.  But how he can see now, or who opened his eyes, we don’t know. Ask him. He is of age; he will speak for himself.’ His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jewish leaders, who already had decided that anyone who acknowledged that Jesus was the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue. That was why his parents said, ‘He is of age; ask him.’  A second time they summoned the man who had been blind. ‘Give glory to God by telling the truth,’ they said. ‘We know this man is a sinner.’  He replied, ‘Whether he is a sinner or not, I don’t know. One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!’

Fifth, the method of performing the miracles [as I commented on in yesterday’s post] adds credibility. Jesus did not make his miracles a “carnival side show.”  He did not try to draw crowd with “magic displays.”  He just saw a need and acted quickly, without fanfare.

Paul Little writes that miracles are very much in the Jewish DNA because the Israeli people were brought about as a nation by a series of miracles in the Old Testament. They did not have the skeptical mind that many people have today.  Many just had an anti-Jesus bias.  They did not want the carpenter from Galilee to be a miracle performer.  They wanted one of their religious leaders to do that.

But He did do the miracles.

We have reliable records to prove it.

Reliable records from our New Testament.

Paul Little* writes about the contrast between the miracles of the pagan soothsayers and Jesus: “[Jesus’ miracles] were never capricious or fantastic.  They were not scattered helter-skelter through the record without rhyme or reason.  There was always clear order and purpose to them….They always had as their purpose to confirm faith by authenticating the message and the messenger, or to demonstrate God’s love by relieving suffering.  They were never performed as entertainment, as a magician puts on a show for his patrons.  Miracles were never performed for personal prestige or to gain money or power.”

When Jesus was asked by His mother to do something about the shortage of wedding wine, Jesus told His mother “Dear Woman, why do you involve Me…My time has not yet come” [John 2]. In a way that was far from “magical flair,” Jesus calmly told the servants to fill the wine jars to the brim with water and then draw out some and take it to the master of the banquet.  When they did, they realized they no longer had a wine shortage. He did what He was asked without fanfare [and even seemed reluctant to perform the miracle].

Jesus was asked by a royal official to heal his son. That was becoming more common as news of Jesus spread.  Jesus said to the official “Unless you people see miraculous signs and wonders…you will never believe”[John 4].  Again, Jesus seems reluctant to perform this miracle, not wanting to make a big deal out of what He knew He could do.  Jesus performs the miracle “long distance.”  He told the official “You may go.  Your son will live.”  The official left Jesus, believing Him I suppose.  It is only when he arrived home that he realized the power of Jesus’ healing.  He found out that his son was indeed healed from the sickness at the exact time that Jesus spoke the words “Your son will live.”  I can imagine seeing an attention-seeking healer surrounded by people, standing over a bed-ridden child.  The exhortations are shouted and the sick child arises from the bed as the crowd has loud intakes of breath.  That is not what happened with Jesus.  He healed from afar.

The Pool of Bethesda had been a prime location for disabled people to lie, hoping for a healing from the special waters. Jesus arrived at the pool, but the people didn’t realize He had the true power of the ability to heal.  There He encountered a man who had been an invalid for thirty-eight years; he was on his mat, hoping for a chance to get to the pool when it bubbled.  At that time people felt the pool could heal.  He never had a chance to get in quickly because he could not move well enough.  Then Jesus arrived and said to the man “Get up!  Pick up your mat and walk” [John 5].  He did.  Jesus made no big public claim at that location.  He just slipped away in the crowd, leaving people to wonder who He was.

Word was beginning to spread about Jesus despite His efforts to remain low-key. Sometime later, Jesus was at the Sea of Galilee and a great crowd of people had followed Him.  The Jewish Passover feast was near and Jesus wanted to feed the crowds but how was He going to do it?  He asked his Disciples and they did not see a way.  Phillip said it would take eight months wages to feed that many.  Andrew said the only food was five loaves and two small fish, carried by a boy.  How will that be enough?  Jesus did not make a big show of His power; He just gave thanks for what they had and told His disciples to pass it out.  It was enough; in fact, there were leftovers.  The people were impressed but instead of pressing them to adore Him or asking them to take some action against the controlling forces of the day [the Romans or the Pharisees], Jesus withdrew to the mountain.

It was inevitable that Jesus began to get more attention but He continued to handle it in a humble manner. He walked on the water but it was in the dark with His Disciples looking on.  He healed the man born blind and after the miracle, the Pharisees wanted to know who did this.  They question the man.  It is obvious that Jesus is beginning to be a concern but they don’t know much about Him; who is this Man and where is this Man?  Those are their main questions.

The raising of Lazarus is the miracle that confounds many because Jesus did not hurry to Lazarus’ grave to bring him back to life. Some think that was to heighten the drama but I am not sure.  I go back to the miracle of the loaves and fishes and the confidence that Jesus had in His ability to feed the people.  Is it possible that Jesus does not rush to Lazarus’ grave because He knows that He will be able to bring him back from the dead?  Mary confronted Jesus when He arrived on the scene with the words “Lord, if you had been there, my brother would not have died” [John 11].  Don’t forget that Jesus was upset because everyone else at that location was upset.  “Jesus wept” over the death of Lazarus but He also said “Where have you laid him?”  When He arrived He did not make grand gestures and exclaim loud words.  He had a simple command:  take away the stone, Lazarus came out and took off the grave clothes.

He knew He could do this.

In John 10: 25 Jesus says to those who question Him about His identity as the Messiah “I did tell you, but you did not believe. The miracles I do in My Father’s name speak for Me.”

Indeed they do.

I think they speak two ways: first of all they are miracles brought about by a Divine person; secondly they are brought about by a humble man.

Jesus fought the problem that many of us have; the need to draw attention to ourselves. He did what He did because His Father asked Him to do it.  He did what He did because He knew He was no trickster, no magician, no soothsayer.

He was the real deal.

He was God.

* In 2016 one of the authors I commented on in my blog Saint John Studies was Paul Little.  These comments were based on his book Know Why You Believe.