The Philosophical Question Behind the Historical Dispute

The miracles of Jesus confront the reader with a question that extends beyond whether an unusual event has been reported accurately. They also raise the question of whether the world is open to the activity of its Creator. David Hume’s objections concentrate on the relationship between testimony, ordinary experience, and the credibility of a miracle, while Carl Sagan’s materialist outlook places the discussion within a universe understood exclusively through physical reality. These approaches differ, but both have influenced the assumption that a supernatural explanation should be rejected before the particular evidence receives a fair hearing. A responsible Christian response must distinguish careful examination of an extraordinary claim from a philosophical rule that prevents such a claim from ever being accepted. The former is appropriate historical reasoning; the latter requires an independent defense and cannot simply be treated as an established scientific fact. The Gospel accounts present Jesus’ miracles as actual events performed among identifiable people, and those claims must be examined according to what the accounts assert.

The New Testament does not present the miracles of Jesus as incidental embellishments attached to an otherwise ordinary teacher. Peter identifies Jesus’ powerful works as acts through which God publicly attested Him before His contemporaries in Acts 2:22. Jesus likewise points to His works as evidence that the Father sent Him in John 5:36. John explains that the signs recorded in his Gospel were written to establish that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and to direct readers toward life through faith in Him in John 20:30–31. Consequently, removing the miracles changes the identity and mission of Jesus as the biblical writers describe them. The issue is therefore substantive: whether the historical testimony should determine the understanding of Jesus or whether an antecedent philosophical restriction should determine which portions of that testimony are permitted to count as history.

What the Biblical Accounts Mean by a Miracle

A biblical miracle is an extraordinary act of divine power that accomplishes a definite purpose and cannot be adequately explained as the ordinary operation of created processes. An event does not qualify as a miracle merely because its cause is presently unknown. An unfamiliar illness, an unexpected recovery, or an unusual atmospheric event may have a natural explanation that further investigation can identify. The miracles of Jesus make a more specific claim: He acted with authority over conditions that ordinary human ability could not overcome. When He commanded Lazarus to come out of the tomb, the account describes the restoration of a man who had died and had already been buried for four days, rather than an unexplained improvement in a living patient’s condition (John 11:17, 38–44). The connection between Jesus’ command and Lazarus’ emergence is central to the event’s meaning.

The biblical vocabulary also emphasizes more than astonishment. The Greek term sēmeion, commonly rendered “sign,” directs attention to the significance of an act, while dynamis, when used for a powerful work, emphasizes the power displayed. These terms prevent the reader from treating Jesus’ miracles as purposeless violations of ordinary experience. The healing of the paralytic in Mark 2:1–12 demonstrates authority associated with Jesus’ declaration concerning the forgiveness of sins. The feeding of the crowd in John 6:1–14 displays His ability to provide where the available food was plainly insufficient. The raising of Lazarus supports Jesus’ declaration concerning resurrection and life in John 11:25–26. Each account joins an observable occurrence to the identity, authority, and teaching of the One who performed it.

Presenting Hume’s Objection Accurately

Hume’s argument deserves a more careful response than the assertion that he merely disliked religion or refused to consider evidence. His central challenge concerns whether testimony can reasonably establish an event that conflicts with the settled course of human experience. Human beings repeatedly observe that the dead remain dead, while they also know that witnesses can deceive, misunderstand, exaggerate, or transmit inaccurate reports. Hume therefore places the evidence supplied by ordinary experience against the evidence supplied by testimony to an extraordinary event. His proposed standard requires the testimony to possess such strength that rejecting it would be less reasonable than accepting the reported miracle. The serious question is whether this comparison is conducted fairly or whether the ordinary course of nature is given an absolute authority that no historical evidence can overcome.

The Christian response can affirm that testimony must be evaluated without accepting every conclusion Hume draws from that principle. A report of a resurrection should receive more searching examination than a report that a traveler arrived in a neighboring town. The unusual character of the claim makes questions about witnesses, circumstances, competing explanations, and corroboration especially important. Nevertheless, greater scrutiny does not justify declaring in advance that every witness to such an event must be mistaken. If the supposed superiority of ordinary experience guarantees the rejection of any contrary testimony, the investigation has become incapable of recognizing the event even if it occurred. Hume’s challenge is therefore strongest as a demand for substantial evidence and weakest when it functions as a permanent prohibition against accepting divine action.

Natural Regularity Does Not Establish a Closed Universe

The regularity of nature is an essential part of the Christian understanding of creation. Genesis 8:22 describes the continuation of the earth’s ordinary cycles, and Psalm 104:19–23 describes the ordered relationship between heavenly movements and daily life. Scripture does not portray a world in which events occur without order or in which observation has no dependable value. Indeed, a miracle can be recognized as extraordinary only because ordinary conditions are sufficiently stable to provide a meaningful comparison. A man’s restoration from death is remarkable because death ordinarily ends his activity and consciousness. Christian belief in miracles therefore presupposes the ordinary regularity that the skeptic invokes.

The disagreement concerns the conclusion drawn from that regularity. Repeated observation of what physical processes ordinarily accomplish does not by itself prove that no agent beyond those processes can act. The proposition that a corpse cannot restore itself to life is different from the proposition that Jehovah cannot restore a dead person to life. Acts 2:24 attributes Jesus’ resurrection to God’s action, rather than to an undiscovered capacity within a dead body. Likewise, the question in Acts 26:8 concerns why God’s raising of the dead should be considered incredible. An argument about the limits of unaided biological processes does not settle the separate question of the Creator’s power over the life He originated.

The expression “violation of natural law” can obscure this distinction when it suggests that a miracle is a logical contradiction. A logical contradiction would involve affirming and denying the same proposition in the same respect at the same time. The statement that Lazarus died and was subsequently restored to life contains no such contradiction. It describes successive conditions and attributes the change to a cause beyond ordinary human power. Although this distinction does not prove that the event occurred, it removes the mistaken claim that resurrection is incoherent merely because it exceeds normal biological processes. The historical question remains whether there is adequate evidence that Jehovah acted in the particular circumstances described.

The Problem with an Appeal to Uniform Experience

An appeal to uniform experience must distinguish what people ordinarily observe from everything that has ever occurred. A person may truthfully report that every burial he has witnessed was followed by the continued death of the buried individual. That observation supplies important knowledge about ordinary human mortality, but it does not establish an exhaustive history of every event involving every dead person. The Gospel claim concerns particular exceptions attributed to divine action. If those reports are rejected simply because all acceptable experience has already been defined as experience without miracles, the argument assumes the conclusion it is supposed to establish. The disputed testimony must receive examination before the experience of humanity can be pronounced uniformly opposed to it.

This objection does not mean that the existence of a miracle report automatically disproves the skeptic’s position. A claim that someone witnessed a resurrection is not identical to a demonstrated resurrection. The report must still be assessed for accuracy, proximity to the event, opportunity for observation, and consistency with other relevant evidence. Nevertheless, its truth cannot be decided merely by placing it outside the category of admissible experience. John 9 illustrates the difference between examining a claim and excluding it because of an established judgment about Jesus. The authorities questioned the healed man and his parents, yet some of their reasoning proceeded from their refusal to acknowledge Jesus’ relationship with God rather than from an adequate explanation of the man’s restored sight.

Rarity and Evidence Are Different Questions

A rare event may require strong evidence, but rarity alone does not determine whether a particular report is false. The exact sequence produced by a long series of shuffled cards can be extraordinarily unlikely before the cards are dealt. Once the sequence has occurred and has been accurately recorded, its previous improbability does not justify denying the record. This illustration does not make a resurrection equivalent to an ordinary card game, because the proposed causes are fundamentally different. It does demonstrate the narrower point that low initial expectation and strong subsequent evidence must be distinguished. An argument that moves directly from “this would be highly unusual” to “therefore it did not happen” omits the examination that historical reasoning requires.

The relevant comparison also concerns complete explanations rather than isolated possibilities. A hypothesis that the disciples invented Jesus’ resurrection must account for the character and content of their testimony, their acknowledgment of earlier disbelief, and their willingness to identify themselves publicly with the proclamation. A hypothesis of mistaken identity must explain the reported encounters with people who had known Jesus closely. A hypothesis involving subjective experiences must be assessed against the accounts of conversation, physical recognition, and shared meals in Luke 24:36–43 and John 21:9–14. None of these observations permits an automatic numerical calculation of the probability of the resurrection. They do require the competing explanations to address the same body of evidence instead of receiving acceptance merely because they exclude divine action.

Carl Sagan’s Argument Against Resurrection Testimony

Carl Sagan’s objections to miracles include a definite argument about testimony to someone returning from death. In chapter 5 of The Varieties of Scientific Experience, he endorses Hume’s comparison between resurrection and deception, then approves Thomas Paine’s claim that the prevalence of lying makes a miracle report overwhelmingly suspect. The argument raises a legitimate question about the reliability of witnesses, but its conclusion requires more than the observation that people sometimes deceive. The existence of false testimony does not establish that a particular witness has testified falsely. Otherwise, the same reasoning would undermine every historical report, since ordinary events are also described by people capable of lying. The relevant inquiry must examine the particular testimony and determine whether deception, misunderstanding, or the reported event best explains it. A general statement about human dishonesty cannot perform that investigation in advance.

The statistical form of the objection is especially problematic. Counting numerous lies does not establish the probability that a particular report of resurrection is false. A meaningful calculation would require a defensible basis for evaluating the relevant kinds of testimony, the circumstances of observation, and the competing explanations. Lies about money, personal conduct, and political advantage do not automatically supply the probability that Peter fabricated an encounter with the risen Jesus. Nor can the probability of divine action be calculated simply by counting how often unaided natural processes restore the dead. The Christian claim is that God raised Jesus, as Acts 2:24 explicitly states. An argument concerning what a dead body cannot accomplish by itself does not establish what its Creator cannot accomplish.

Why the Apostolic Testimony Cannot Be Dismissed as an Ordinary Rumor

The resurrection proclamation contains features that require more specific treatment than Sagan’s general comparison provides. In 1 Corinthians 15:3–8, Paul identifies Jesus’ death, burial, resurrection, and appearances as the content of the message he received and transmitted. He names Cephas and James, refers to appearances involving groups, and includes his own encounter. His statement about more than five hundred brothers is accompanied by the observation that most remained alive when he wrote. This does not provide five hundred surviving written depositions, but it does locate the claim among living participants rather than an inaccessible succession of anonymous storytellers. The passage therefore presents concrete historical assertions that a hypothesis of deception must address individually.

Paul also identifies himself as someone who had persecuted the Christian congregation in 1 Corinthians 15:9. His testimony cannot be adequately explained by assuming that he had always wanted the Christian proclamation to be true. Likewise, John 20:24–29 presents Thomas initially resisting the other disciples’ announcement, while Luke 24:11 records the apostles rejecting the women’s report. These statements do not make mistake or deception logically impossible, but they contradict a reconstruction in which every participant eagerly accepted the resurrection because it satisfied an existing expectation. A convincing alternative must explain the reported movement from opposition or disbelief to public testimony. Sagan’s general observation that people lie supplies no such explanation. It establishes the need to examine witnesses, while leaving the actual examination unfinished.

The apostles’ endurance under opposition strengthens the case against deliberate invention without eliminating every other conceivable explanation. Acts 4:18–20 describes Peter and John refusing official demands that they stop speaking about what they had seen and heard. Their willingness to suffer does not prove their accuracy merely because suffering occurred. People can endure hardship for beliefs that are false. Its significance concerns their sincerity and the difficulty of portraying their proclamation as an invention adopted for obvious personal convenience. Historical reasoning must therefore distinguish the possibility of sincere error from the accusation of conscious fraud. The general category of deception cannot substitute for evidence that these particular witnesses knowingly fabricated their testimony.

Sagan’s Claim That Later Supporters Distorted Jesus’ Life

Sagan also makes an explicit judgment about the historical Jesus in the question-and-answer portion of The Varieties of Scientific Experience. He accepts Jesus as a historical person and regards the Gospel accounts as reasonably coherent, yet concludes that later supporters and opponents distorted the details of His life and mission. This position requires an evidential distinction between an authentic historical figure and allegedly unreliable descriptions of His activity. The possibility of distortion is real in historical transmission, but possibility does not establish occurrence in a particular account. A critic must identify the disputed assertion, explain the evidence for alteration, and demonstrate why the proposed reconstruction is preferable. Without that work, the claim of distortion remains a general hypothesis rather than a demonstrated explanation of Jesus’ miracles.

The assertion also encounters the close relationship between Jesus’ teaching and His works. In Mark 2:1–12, the healing of the paralytic is connected with Jesus’ declaration concerning forgiveness. In John 11:25–44, His teaching about resurrection and life is joined to His raising Lazarus. In John 10:37–38, Jesus appeals to His works as grounds for recognizing His relationship with the Father. Removing the miracles therefore requires more than subtracting a few isolated marvels from an otherwise unaffected biography. It changes the reported grounds upon which Jesus asserted His authority and upon which His followers identified Him. A reconstruction that retains an ordinary teacher while discarding those connected claims must explain why its selective acceptance is historically warranted.

Luke’s stated procedure directly challenges the assumption that the Gospel history arose through uncontrolled embellishment. Luke 1:1–4 distinguishes earlier accounts, the testimony transmitted by eyewitnesses, and his own careful investigation. This declaration does not remove the responsibility to evaluate his work, but it identifies a process substantially different from an anonymous legend developing without reference to participants. John 19:35 likewise explicitly connects testimony with personal observation in the account of Jesus’ death. Paul’s discussion in Galatians 1:18–19 identifies his contact with Cephas and James, connecting a principal resurrection witness with other leading participants. These passages provide concrete relationships within the transmission of the Christian proclamation. An argument for distortion must engage those relationships rather than assume that religious commitment necessarily made truthful reporting impossible.

The same standard applies to claims that the miracle accounts were introduced to strengthen an otherwise ordinary religious movement. A motive that can be imagined is not evidence that a particular action occurred. An advocate may tell the truth precisely because an event persuaded him, just as an opponent may report facts accurately despite rejecting their significance. John 20:30–31 openly acknowledges an intention to produce belief through the presentation of selected signs. That purpose establishes the writer’s aim, but it does not establish that the signs were invented. The proper question concerns whether his testimony is trustworthy. Treating persuasion as proof of fabrication would invalidate truthful historical writing whenever its author considered the events important.

Sagan’s Appeal to Repeatable Verification

Another documented objection appears in Sagan’s comparison between religious miracle claims and the repeatable verification available in physics. Repeatability is a powerful means of establishing how a process ordinarily operates, but a particular historical event presents a different investigative question. A researcher can repeatedly examine the behavior of falling objects without repeatedly producing the same ancient battle, assassination, or shipwreck. Those events are investigated through surviving evidence and the explanations that best account for it. Jesus’ resurrection likewise concerns something asserted to have happened, rather than a general claim that dead bodies regularly revive under specified natural conditions. Demanding a new resurrection under an investigator’s control would request another event. It would not constitute an examination of whether the reported historical event occurred.

This distinction does not place the Gospel claims beyond rational scrutiny. Their claims concern identifiable conditions: a man was blind and subsequently saw, another was dead and subsequently lived, and Jesus was executed and subsequently encountered alive. Scientific knowledge helps establish the significance of those conditions and the inadequacy of ordinary explanations when the stated circumstances are accepted. It can also expose a false diagnosis, an inaccurate report, or a fraudulent demonstration. Nevertheless, the inability to compel a purposeful divine act does not establish that no such act occurred. John 11:41–44 presents Lazarus’ restoration as an intentional act connected with Jesus’ prayer and command. Its claimed cause is the Father’s power exercised through His Son, which cannot be reduced to a mechanism operating whenever an investigator supplies the required materials.

The Healing of the Man Born Blind Requires a Specific Explanation

The account in John 9 illustrates what a serious investigation of Jesus’ miracles must address. The man’s neighbors questioned whether he was the same person previously known as a beggar, and he affirmed his identity in John 9:8–9. His parents confirmed both his identity and his blindness from birth in John 9:18–21. They distinguished what they knew about his earlier condition from what they did not know about the manner of his healing. The authorities questioned the man repeatedly, while disagreement developed over the significance of Jesus’ action. The narrative therefore addresses identity, prior condition, present ability, testimony, and interpretation. These are substantive evidential matters rather than a general invitation to accept an astonishing story.

A proposed explanation must account for that connected presentation. Mistaken identity would require explaining why the man, his parents, and those familiar with him were represented as confirming the same identity. A claim that his blindness was invented would require grounds for rejecting the testimony concerning his condition. A claim of later fabrication would require an argument about the account’s origin and reliability. These alternatives can be proposed, but their mere availability does not establish their truth. The historical question is not answered by observing that some people have invented miracle stories. It requires reasons for concluding that this account belongs in that category.

Lazarus and the Difference Between an Unexplained Recovery and a Divine Act

The raising of Lazarus similarly resists explanation through an undefined appeal to ordinary recovery. John 11:14 explicitly identifies his condition as death, while John 11:17 states that he had already been in the tomb four days. Martha’s objection to opening the tomb reflects her recognition of the condition associated with that interval in John 11:39. Jesus’ public prayer then identifies the purpose of the act: those present were to recognize that the Father had sent Him. His command is followed by Lazarus emerging, still bound with burial cloths, in John 11:43–44. The claim therefore concerns the restoration of a dead person in response to Jesus’ deliberate action. Replacing that claim with a recovery from fainting changes the asserted event rather than explaining it.

A critic may dispute the truthfulness of the account, but that dispute must be supported by an examination of the testimony. Ordinary experience establishes that buried people do not restore themselves to life. The Gospel agrees that Lazarus was dead and attributes his restoration to power beyond the processes that ordinarily govern human life. The disagreement therefore concerns whether Jehovah acted through Jesus in the circumstances described. Neither the frequency of human lying nor the existence of embellished religious stories settles that particular question. Jesus’ prayer and command, the identified condition of Lazarus, and the reported outcome must be considered together. John presents them as evidence that the Father sent His Son, making the credibility of the testimony the decisive issue that Sagan’s general objections leave unresolved.

The Resurrection Testimony and Its Proper Evidential Weight

Paul’s treatment of Jesus’ resurrection provides an essential answer to the charge that Christianity rests on an undefined religious impression. In 1 Corinthians 15:3–8, he identifies Jesus’ death, burial, resurrection, and appearances as the substance of the message he received and transmitted. He names Cephas and James, refers to the Twelve and the apostles, and includes his own encounter. He also reports an appearance to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom were still alive when he wrote. This presentation places the claim within the lives of identifiable people and a community containing surviving witnesses. It differs substantially from a story detached from any opportunity for contemporary inquiry.

Precision nevertheless requires distinguishing Paul’s report from the surviving testimony of every person he mentions. The existence of his statement concerning five hundred brothers does not mean that five hundred separate written depositions are available. Nor should the Gospel narratives be treated as if every overlapping statement arose without any shared knowledge or transmission. Historical support gains strength through the quality and relationships of the testimony, rather than through an inflated count of supposedly independent documents. Paul’s statement remains significant because it names participants, identifies different occasions of appearance, and includes his personal testimony within a broader proclamation. Its actual evidential value is substantial without exaggerating what survives.

Paul also states plainly what would follow if Jesus had not been raised. According to 1 Corinthians 15:14–19, Christian proclamation would be empty, the witnesses would have testified falsely concerning God, and believers would remain in their sins. This reasoning is incompatible with the suggestion that the resurrection’s historical reality is irrelevant so long as the story inspires hope. Paul makes the truth of the event indispensable to the truth of the message. His argument also prevents the Christian defender from retreating into an account that treats resurrection as merely the continuation of Jesus’ influence. The issue remains an act of God in history, and the apostolic message accepts the consequences of that claim.

Sincerity, Suffering, and the Possibility of Mistake

The willingness of witnesses to endure opposition deserves consideration, but its significance must be stated accurately. People can suffer for beliefs that are false, so suffering alone cannot prove that a belief corresponds to reality. The relevant distinction concerns whether witnesses knowingly invented the experiences they publicly proclaimed. Acts 4:18–20 depicts Peter and John refusing to stop speaking about what they had seen and heard despite official pressure. Paul’s account of his hardships in 2 Corinthians 11:23–28 likewise shows that his proclamation was associated with serious personal cost. Such circumstances weigh against the simple proposal that the message was a convenient invention adopted for an easy advantage.

Sincerity still leaves the separate question of accurate perception. A sincere witness might misidentify a person, misremember a conversation, or interpret an experience incorrectly. The resurrection accounts must therefore be examined for the conditions of recognition and the kinds of interaction they describe. Luke 24:36–43 presents Jesus addressing the disciples’ fear and drawing their attention to evidence of His presence. John 20:19–29 describes recognition associated with His wounds and His encounter with Thomas. These accounts do not permit the historical question to be settled by sincerity alone, but they provide specific claims that a theory of sincere mistake must explain.

Competing Religious Claims Do Not Automatically Cancel the Evidence

Hume’s objection concerning miracle claims in different religions raises a legitimate question about inconsistent religious conclusions. If two systems make mutually contradictory claims, both cannot be correct in the same respect. It does not follow, however, that every extraordinary event reported in connection with either system must therefore be fictitious. The occurrence of an event and the interpretation attached to it require separate examination. A witness may correctly report an unusual occurrence while drawing an unwarranted conclusion from it. Conversely, a false report supporting one religious claim does not establish the falsity of a different report possessing stronger evidence.

Scripture itself rejects the notion that an impressive sign automatically validates every associated message. Deuteronomy 13:1–4 requires loyalty to Jehovah even when a sign is connected with an invitation to follow other gods. Matthew 24:24 warns concerning deceptive signs associated with false claimants. Biblical discernment therefore considers the message, the identity of the claimant, the circumstances, and the evidence together. Jesus’ miracles belong within His teaching, His obedience to the Father, and His fulfillment of the mission described in the Scriptures. The Christian defense does not need to accept every religious wonder story in order to defend the particular acts attributed to Him.

Possibility Must Lead to Historical Examination

Showing that miracles are possible within a created universe does not establish that every alleged miracle occurred. The statement that Jehovah can raise the dead answers a philosophical prohibition, while the statement that He raised Jesus concerns a particular historical act. Confusing these questions would leave the defense incomplete. The existence of a Creator makes divine action intelligible, but the evidence concerning Jesus must still establish why His resurrection should be accepted. The New Testament supplies that evidence through testimony concerning His ministry, death, burial, appearances, and the proclamation that followed. The philosophical response clears away an unjustified exclusion so that the historical case can receive proper attention.

The same distinction prevents an argument from ignorance. A Christian defender should not reason that an event has no presently known explanation and must therefore have been caused by God. The miracle accounts present positive claims concerning Jesus’ words, actions, authority, and relationship with the Father. In Mark 4:35–41, the calming of the storm is connected with His command and with the disciples’ ensuing question about His identity. In John 11:41–44, Lazarus’ restoration follows Jesus’ public prayer and specific summons. The proposed divine explanation rests on that purposeful connection, rather than solely on the absence of an available natural explanation.

Written Testimony and the Responsibility of the Reader

Later readers do not occupy the same position as those who encountered Jesus directly, but that difference does not make historical knowledge impossible. Much of what is known about earlier generations depends on testimony preserved in writing. The proper response is to evaluate the documents, their claims, their circumstances, and their relationship to the events they describe. Luke 1:1–4 expressly connects his orderly account with the transmission of information from eyewitnesses and his own careful investigation. John 20:30–31 likewise identifies written testimony as the means by which readers who were absent from the original events could come to faith. Neither writer treats distance from the event as a reason to abandon rational confidence.

Jesus’ words to Thomas must be read alongside that stated purpose of John’s Gospel. John 20:29 blesses those who believe without having seen, but John immediately explains that selected signs have been recorded so that readers may believe. The movement is from direct observation to trustworthy testimony, rather than from evidence to evidence-free conviction. A reader who cannot inspect Jesus’ wounds personally can still consider the testimony of those who encountered Him. The strength of that testimony must be assessed honestly, without assuming that every ancient report is true or that every miraculous report is false. Belief becomes responsible when it answers the evidence actually presented.

The Authority Established by Jesus’ Works

Jesus’ miracles ultimately concern more than the defeat of a skeptical argument. Their stated purpose is to identify Him and establish the authority of the message He brought from the Father. John 10:37–38 records His appeal to His works as grounds for recognizing His relationship with the Father. Acts 2:22–24 connects His attested ministry with His death and God’s raising Him from the dead. The reader is therefore confronted with a connected historical and theological claim, rather than an assortment of unexplained curiosities. Accepting that claim entails recognizing the authority of the One whose works support His words.

That authority gives the resurrection its direct bearing on human life and hope. Jesus’ death provides the atonement proclaimed in 1 Corinthians 15:3, and His resurrection establishes the reality upon which Paul’s argument concerning the future resurrection depends in 1 Corinthians 15:20–23. Death is not overcome through confidence in the independent permanence of human life, but through Jehovah’s power to restore those who have died. John 5:28–29 accordingly directs attention to those in the memorial tombs hearing Jesus’ voice and coming out. The historical question therefore reaches beyond whether an exception to ordinary experience can be admitted. It concerns whether Jehovah has acted through His Son to provide the deliverance from sin and death that the Gospel proclaims.

You May Also Enjoy

Resolving Doubts Through Scripture and Sound Reasoning

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS