How far may theology be reconciled with science in explaining the nature of, and reasons for, the miracles of Jesus?

        So generally, can science and theology be reconciled? They can, if theological and scientific views are broadened. If scientists and/or theologians can be more liberal with their views, then the two can be reconciled. However, if

Laura Howe

the views stay narrow, and aren’t broadened at all; science and theology cannot be reconciled.

        Before studying the relationship between theology and science within a context of Jesus’ miracles, we need to define what a miracle is.

        A miracle is ‘a marvellous event attributed to a supernatural cause’ or ‘any amazing or wonderful event’. Miracles can be traced back to the Old Testament. In the Old Testament, ‘God had done mighty works in his transcendent power and revealed them to His servants or used His servants as the occasional agents of such deeds’. God performs miracles in the Old Testament at key moments, such as choosing a leader, delivering His own people, or punishing his enemies. This is portrayed in Exodus, where God uses miracles to call Moses through the burning bush, and to punish Egypt, in the form of the Ten Plagues and to help the people escape through the red Sea. In the New Testament, miracles take place in and through Jesus, who is God incarnate, and who shows us the power, authority and character of a God who is immanent and not transcendent. Richard Swinbourne argued this by writing ‘If there is a God, one might well expect Him to make His presence known to man, not merely through the overall pattern of the universe in which He placed them, but by dealing more intimately and personally with them’. In John’s Gospel particularly, miracles are referred to as ‘signs’ or semia, instead of dunamis or ‘mighty word’ – they were used to prove to the people watching that Jesus was the Son of God. Miracles have a strong theological purpose, but in the New Testament they are not portrayed as simply ‘made up’ stories, but to accomplish a theological purpose. They are clearly portrayed as ‘true’ events, which really did happen.

When we begin to look at the miracles of Jesus in detail, it seems difficult, at first glance, to be able to reconcile science and theology. This is because, as David Hulme states, miracles are ‘a breach of natural [scientific] law’. However, as aforementioned, if we broaden our view of scientific law – or theology – we can reconcile the two. An example of one miracle is Jesus walking on the water:

‘When they had rowed the boat about five or six kilometres, they saw Jesus walking on the water, coming towards the boat. The followers were afraid, but Jesus said to them, “It is I. Do not be afraid.”’

(John 6:19-20)

This may not have been a miracle at all, but Jesus might have been walking around the shallow water on the coast. John could have written this so that it looked more miraculous, so that it would encourage more believers. This is a

Laura Howe

Miracle that is referred to as a ‘nature miracle’, these can be explained scientifically more easily than the healings and exorcisms.

        Another of Jesus’ miracles was when he calmed the storm:

‘The followers went to Jesus and woke him, saying, “Master! Master! We will drown!”

Jesus got up and gave a command to the wind and the waves. They stopped, and it became calm.’

(Luke 8: 24)

This is another example of Jesus’ ‘nature miracles’. By broadening our theological view on this miracle, it may be that the storm was naturally coming to an end, and that this was not miraculous at all. Storms last for an indefinite amount of time – this could have been a short storm, so when Jesus commanded it to stop, it was when the storm was ending, and been coincidental. However, it may have been a supernatural occurrence, where we would have to broaden our view of science.

One of Jesus’ healing miracles was the healing of the blind man:

‘Jesus said to the man with the crippled hand, “Stand up here in the middle of everyone.”

Then Jesus asked the people, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath day: to do good or to do evil, to save a life or to kill?” But they said nothing to answer him.

Jesus was angry when he looked at the people, and he felt very sad because they were stubborn. Then he said to the man, “Hold out your hand.” The man held out his hand and it was healed.’

(Mark 3: 3-5)

        

        This miracle could be explained by either broadening our view on theology, or by broadening our view of science. If we broaden our view of theology, the healing of the man’s hand may have been a case of ‘mind over matter’ – because the man believed that his hand was going to be healed, it was. This event could also have been simply a parable with an important meaning.

There are also other miraculous events in the Gospels, such as the raising of Lazarus:

After Jesus had said this, he cried in a loud voice, “Lazarus come out!” The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with pieces of cloth, and a cloth around his face. Jesus said to them, “Take the cloth off him and let him go.”’

(John 11:43-44)

Laura Howe

This miracle is one that seems very fantastic. Raising people from the dead defies all the laws of science – once people are dead, they shouldn’t be able to come back to life. Lazarus had been dead for four days before Jesus raised him,

So he should have definitely been dead by this point. Martha told him that he shouldn’t roll away the stone, as there would be a bad smell. Lazarus was dead, so we have to conclude that Jesus did perform a miracle by raising him. This was fantastic, and was very hard to believe, but we know that, according to a narrow view of theology, Jesus must have made a dead man alive and this cannot be reconciled with science. However, if we broaden our view of theology, we can conclude that Jesus did raise Lazarus – but from example, a coma. We could also conclude that it was simply a story, which symbolised and prepared the reader for Jesus’ resurrection, which happens soon after. Therefore, this miracle had some significance (as a parable, for example), but didn’t undermine scientific law. If we broaden our scientific view, then maybe the laws of death decomposition of bodies are not irreversible.

Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection was also a very fantastic miracle:

‘But Jesus cried out again in a loud voice and died…The angel said to the women, “Don’t be afraid. I know that you are looking for Jesus, who has been crucified. He is not here. He has risen from the dead as he said he would.”’

(Matthew 27:50 - 28:5,6)

Here, Jesus is the one who has died, he has defeated his own death, and has come back to live forever. In the book ‘Evidence for the Resurrection, John Austen Baker argues ‘That Jesus was crucified is regarded by any serious historian as a fact beyond dispute’. John Austen Baker also tells us that ‘when we study the Easter stories in the Gospels, we are studying not just one writer’s account but memory and proclamation reaching back eventually into the first Easter community itself’. This miracle was not actually performed by Jesus himself though; this was done by God, as a person cannot raise themselves from the dead, therefore this isn’t one of Jesus’ miracles. If we broaden our view of theology, then maybe Jesus wasn’t actually raised. Maybe his body was stolen by his disciples or hidden from his disciples so that it simply appeared as if Jesus had arisen. If we broaden our view of science, then as with the Lazarus miracle, maybe the laws of death and decomposition are not irreversible.

In conclusion, I believe that theology and science can be reconciled in a context of the miracles of Jesus. Dr. Ron Rhodes makes the point that ‘It is not nature and scripture that contradict; rather, it is science (man’s fallible interpretation of nature) and theology (man’s fallible interpretation of

Laura Howe

Scripture) that sometimes fall into conflict’. If we broadened our view of science, we could conclude that science is, on occasions, not an ‘absolute’, which provides all answers and can never be contradicted or changed. Instead, possibly, events happen which occasionally question science and render it fallible. This may cause us to think that maybe there are some scientific laws that are yet to be discovered. If we broaden our view of theology, then maybe the recorded miracles in the Bible were not quite as they were reported. Maybe there were more ‘natural’ events, with a scientific explanation, which were simply interpreted in a supernatural way to give theological meanings. This shows us that science and theology can be reconciled, if one or both are viewed in more a liberal way. Thus, science can be reconciled with theology when we consider the miracles of Jesus, but we need to view science and theology properly; our understanding of both these need to be broadened. Personally, I find it easier to broaden my view of science, as ‘science is in a constant state of change’, whereas Christian theology has admirably stood the test of 200 years of severe modern scientific scrutiny.

---

Laura Howe

Bibliography.

• New Century Version Bible, 1993

• Evidence For The Resurrection, John Austin Baker, 1986

• The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn

• Dr. Ron Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries

         

        

---