The Resurrection: Myth or Miracle? — A Conversation with a Skeptic

Introduction

Yesterday, I sat huddled in a corner of a little coffee shop, pen in my hand, a book in my lap, and my Bible spread out on the table before me, flatter and broader than a Texas sunset. Because the Word of God was my main focus as I pondered over the measurements of distances, I was reminded of a verse: “May [you] have [the] strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God” (Eph. 3:18-19).¹ Why was I thinking about distances, and what distance was on my mind? The book in my lap was a copy of J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, and I wondered just how far Frodo had to travel to reach the dreary Mount Doom in Mordor. You might ask, “Why are you reading The Lord of the Rings alongside your Bible?” In short, I do so for work—working for a Christian, historical-fiction author greatly influenced by Tolkien and C.S. Lewis—but in reality, I do so because I value all that can be gained from allegory, and myth, even if fantastical.

Rather suddenly, interrupting my train of thought, a man dressed like a gentleman sat beside me. Seeking to be kind and avoid awkwardness, I said, “Beautiful weather today. It’s nothing short of a miracle, considering it’s been nice for days in a place like Amarillo, Texas.” The man, holding a worn copy of David Hume’s An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, responded, “Yes, it has been quite nice recently, but I do not believe in miracles.” Immediately noticing that this man was sincere, I asked if he would like to discuss miracles and faith, precisely the greatest and most necessary miracle of all, the Resurrection of Christ, and he agreed, looking quite excited to put Hume’s words to use. Our conversation went something like this:

Initial Argument

Skeptic: (Noticing the book in my hands, the man politely nodded thoughtfully.) “I see you’re reading The Lord of the Rings… fantastic literature. While I am also a fantasy fan and sincerely appreciate fiction, I see the Resurrection of Jesus as no different than that book in your lap—a mere tale, fairy story, and myth. Sure, those sorts of stories can convey great emotion and moral truths as they celebrate the human condition and beauty, yet the story of Jesus is nothing more than inspirational. His story carries undertones of love, grace, and sacrifice, all worthy things. Yet, His Resurrection is where the story begins to fall apart for me. There are far more rational answers about what happened to the historical Jesus. Is it true that He lived and ministered some two thousand years ago? I do not doubt it. I even believe in His death, yet His miracles, specifically His coming back to life? They are silly ideas and a fabricated story woven by Christians through the centuries. I much prefer the conclusion that, seeking to give His death meaning, His disciples fabricated the Resurrection by stealing his body from the grave. This alternative to the Christian belief in the Resurrection agrees with the law of the universe: what is dead stays dead.

Furthermore, to quote Hume, “A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence… He proceeds with more caution: He weighs the opposite experiments: He considers which side is supported by the greater number of experiments: to that side he inclines.”² In short, I see the evidence against the Resurrection of Jesus as far more convincing than the evidence supporting it. I do not reject the sacrificial death and Resurrection of Jesus because I believe it is morally wrong, but because I wish to be wise, embracing the truth derived from logic and evidence.

Moreover, I trust more in what my eye can see than what men of old have told me, for my experience is more valuable than their word. Again, Hume says, and I agree that “Our evidence, then, for the truth of the Christian religion is less than the evidence for the truth of our senses; because, even in the first authors of our religion, it was no greater; and it is evident it must diminish in passing from them to their disciples; nor can any one rest such confidence in their testimony, as in the immediate object of his senses.”³ I suppose you could call me a ‘doubting Thomas,’ for if I could witness the Resurrection of Jesus firsthand, I may believe it, lest my eyes deceive me. Yet, I have never seen the risen Jesus, and therefore have less reason to believe than even the doubtful Thomas.”

(He points to a long, highlighted quote in his worn book.) “Lastly, Hume’s definition of a miracle is peculiar and makes such events incredibly unlikely, if not impossible:

A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. Why is it more than probable, that all men must die… unless it be, that these events are found agreeable to the laws of nature, and there is required a violation of these laws, or in other words, a miracle to prevent them? Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happens in the common course of nature. It is no miracle that a man, seemingly in good health, should die on a sudden: because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently observed to happen. But it is a miracle, that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country.⁴

Miracles, by definition, do not happen according to the laws of nature—rules that govern everything we know about the universe. Why should I believe in them if they disagree with our understanding of reality due to science and empiricism?

To summarize, I do not believe in the Resurrection because of three reasons: 1) The evidence of the Resurrection is inferior to the evidence of the lack thereof, 2) I have never seen the risen Jesus and my senses are superior to the testimony of others, and 3) Miracles just do not happen in our world. Faith in the Resurrection of Jesus is unwarranted because it defies the laws of nature, and without direct sensory evidence, it cannot be accepted as truth.”

Me: “You make some fair points. However, I still see the Resurrection as true and supported by evidence and rationality. First, the testimony of the Apostles and early Christians is valuable and appeals to the senses as they are histories written and passed around on physical parchment. You can open a Bible and see the Gospels and other passages such as “the speeches in Acts and 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 [that] presuppose an empty tomb.”⁵ Moreover, these authors of the Scripture did have a sensory experience of the Resurrection. These sections of Scripture, and indeed Scripture in its entirety, have been well preserved with very few insignificant changes made throughout time. Therefore, when we read the Bible we can be sure we are reading precisely what the human authors and God intended.

You might say, “What does the reliability of Scripture have to do with miracles? It does not matter if they are accurate to when they were written, for either way the story of the Resurrection could have been fabricated even in that first century.” You would be correct to make such a remark, yet we have now eliminated the possibility of the doctrine of the Resurrection being developed throughout time. To address the second half of your remark, the development of the Resurrection in the first century, the Jewish predisposition of the disciples and eventual martyrdom of the early Christians is helpful. In Jewish theology, the doctrine of resurrection was something that occurred at the end of time, was a general resurrection of humanity, does not fit the concept of “Jesus’ body with the unique features of its behavior,” and visions were understood by the Jews as occurrences of people manifested to earth from heaven, not raised from the dead.⁶ Furthermore, Jews understood visions as occurring to individuals, such as Moses’ vision of the burning bush.⁷ Overall, “The Resurrection was unexpected and it is reported in such a way as to be almost completely out of touch with what these men had been taught to expect from the time they were little boys… Such an account would have had a poor antecedent probability of being successfully promulgated.”⁸ Not to mention, the overwhelming point you have probably heard a lot: Why would the disciples fabricate something and confess it to be accurate, even to the point of martyrdom? A man does not die for something that he knows is not true.

Basically, I believe in the Resurrection for three reasons: 1) The Scriptures are reliable and do have a sensory aspect to Them, 2) There is reason to assume the Apostles were telling the truth, and 3) Miracles may be unnatural, yet when God is viewed as a personal Being that interacts with His creation, they are no longer irrational.”

Skeptic: Very interesting points. Yes, I have heard of some of those arguments before, yet I was unaware of the disposition of the Jewish disciples. Still, I am convinced the Resurrection of Jesus is a mere myth. To accept it, I would have to rely on mere testimony rather than trustworthy empirical data that aligns with the structure and laws of the universe as we know them.

You say that the Resurrection and the Scriptures are not mythical but the absolute truth, yet I wonder why they cannot be both in your worldview. Why can’t the Resurrection be a myth like other mythologies—stories that convey truth, beauty, and goodness yet are not historically factual?”

Me: (I look down towards Tolkien’s book, and then to my Bible.) What a fascinating question! It is indeed true that myths do convey deeper and transcendental meanings. Yet, to answer your question, regardless of whether various myths convey these things, they are still fictitious stories while the Bible is not. The Bible is a true story, as it conveys truth, beauty, goodness, historical facts, and testimony. Yet, since it still conveys the transcendentals and spiritual truths, it can be called myth. Moreover, in the words of Tolkien’s contemporary and friend, C.S. Lewis, “The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact. The old myth of the Dying God, without ceasing to be myth, comes down from the heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history. It happens—at a particular date, in a particular place, followed by definable historical consequences.”⁹ It took Lewis some time to conclude that the Bible is myth and reality, but Tolkien convinced him.

This apologetic—the use, applicability, and wisdom of myth—can be seen in Mythopoeia, a poem written by Tolkien to Lewis:

To one who said that myths were lies and therefore worthless, even though ‘breathed through silver’… The heart of man is not compound of lies, but draws some wisdom from the only Wise, and still recalls him. Though now long estranged, man is not wholly lost nor wholly changed. Dis-graced he may be, yet is not dethroned, and keeps the rags of lordship one he owned, his world-dominion by creative act: not his to worship the great Artefact, man, sub-creator, the refracted light through whom is splintered from a single White to many hues, and endlessly combined in living shapes that move from mind to mind. Though all the crannies of the world we filled with elves and goblins, though we dared to build gods and their houses out of dark and light, and sow the seed of dragons, ‘twas our right (used or misused). The right has not decayed. We make still by the law in which we’re made.¹⁰

In short, because man is made in God’s Image yet fallen because of sin, he is still able to create myths and stories that reflect spiritual realities. When conveyed through myth, these spiritual truths are shadows of their authentic selves—types of antitypes. They are but an imperfect comparison, but truth remains in them. However, the Bible conveys these spiritual truths in their fully revealed and realized capacity, so it is both myth and historical fact.

For example, just as Frodo carried and bore the ring, Christ carried the cross and bore our sin. Just as Beowulf slayed Grendel, Grendel’s mother, and the dragon suffering death, Christ defeated wickedness, sin, and the Devil at the expense of His own life. However, as we have been talking about, the death of Christ is not the end of the story. Christ truly and historically rose from the dead.”

Skeptic: Wow, that is very interesting! I knew of Tolkien and Lewis as great fiction writers and was aware of their Christian faith. Yet, I did not realize that they thought so deeply about the spiritual aspects of fiction, apart from purposeful allegory such as The Chronicles of Narnia. But are you saying that mythology is ingrained with these spiritual underpinnings? While I agree that myth and fiction are valuable, I would not go as far as them. I see myth, fiction, and fantasy as conveying goodness, truth, and beauty, yet not reflecting spiritual realities. When you say that the Bible is both myth—in the sense that it provides the types of the antitypes found in other myths—and historical literature, do you mean that certain parts of the Bible are myth and other parts are history? Could it be that the parts concerned with the Resurrection are mere myth?”

Me: Great Question! But no, that is not what I mean. The distinction I am making is not so much about dividing God’s Word into factual and mythical parts. Instead, the distinction is understanding how myth and spiritual realities are related. When I say the Bible is myth, I am saying it points to deeper realities of God’s creation. The Bible has elements of traditional myth, for it also has types and antitypes such as Adam, David, or Moses being types of Christ, the antitype. Still, these spiritual reflections remain rooted in historical facts when the Bible does this. In this sense, the Bible can be classified as myth and historical documentation, not just in parts. Regarding this, in a letter to his son, Tolkien writes, “I do not mean that the Gospels tell what is only a fairy-story; but I do mean very strongly that they do tell a fairy-story: the greatest.”¹¹ When I call the Bible a myth, I do not mean it’s a fictitious story, but a story that reliably communicates supreme truth.

The Resurrection is an actual, historic event that conveys the spiritual truths of life, death, and redemption. It is not merely symbolic or allegorical. It not only communicates these truths to us but also accomplishes our salvation. It is as efficacious as it is descriptive. In this sense, it is different from traditional mythology. In Tolkien, Lewis, or other mythological stories, humans long for and describe redemption and meaning. Still, in the Bible, redemption and meaning are defined and accomplished: “if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins… But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:17, 20-22). This is the reason Tolkien calls the Resurrection “the greatest ‘eucatastrophe’ [the pleasant opposite of a catastrophe] possible in the greatest Fairy Story… Joy and Sorrow are at one, reconciled, as selfishness and altruism are lost in Love.”¹² It would not be joyful if it did not accomplish anything, and it would not convey nor accomplish so much if the sorrow due to His death had not preceded it. Indeed, logically speaking, a resurrection first requires a death.”

Skeptic: I can understand that from your Christian perspective, yet I still disagree with you. I just cannot accept these abstract ideas without tangible and empirical evidence. I have greatly enjoyed talking to you and have a new view and appreciation of storytelling. Thank you for your time.

Me: Likewise, my friend. Please consider what I have said. I asked to have this conversation with you to share the Good News of Jesus with a man who needs it, just as we all need it. The Gospel is your only hope, just as it is mine.

Conclusion

As I sat in that coffee shop, just as Frodo returned to the Shire after his journey in the face of adversity, my mind returned to the Scripture after a mentally tiresome yet spiritually rejuvenating conversation: “May [you] have [the] strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God” (Eph. 3:18-19). I remember that not too long ago, I was in the same place as the man who sat across from me, dissatisfied with the answers. Yet, God, in His grace, revealed to me the love that surpasses all understanding He has for me, and I pray that man will be overwhelmed by “the breadth and length and height and depth” of the love of Christ in the same way. Moreover, I pray that when I pass into glory, just as Frodo eventually passed into the Undying Lands, I will see the gentleman there next to me, praising the Savior who rose from the grave.

Unlike the Resurrection, this encounter with the skeptic man is a fabrication. Yet, could it have happened? It absolutely could have, for the man’s worldview, appreciation for narrative and fantasy, and Christianity are all common encounters today—ideas that coexist in the ‘brewing pot’ of hobbies, books, religions, and worldviews that we call a coffee shop.

Bibliography

Hume, David. “Of Miracles.” In Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding, and Concerning the Principles of Morals, edited by L.A. Selby-Bigge, 2nd ed, 10.1.86-101. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1902.

J.P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987.

Lewis, C.S. “Myth Became Fact.” In God in the Dock, 66-67. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

———. The Chronicles of Narnia. New York: HarperCollins, 2000.

Tolkien, J.R.R. Beowulf: A Translation. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2014.

———. “Letter 89.” In The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, edited by Humphrey Carpenter, 115-117. London, UK: George Allen and Unwin, 1966. https://time.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/the_letters_of_j.rrtolkien.pdf

———. “Mythopoeia.” https://www.tolkien.ro/text/JRR%20Tolkien%20-%20Mythopoeia.pdf

———. The Lord of the Rings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2004.

Footnotes

1. Unless otherwise specified, all Scripture references are to the English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016). ↩

2. David Hume, An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, 10.1.87. ↩

3. Hume, 10.1.86. ↩

4. Ibid., 10.1.90. ↩

5. J.P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1987), 160. ↩

6. Moreland, 175. ↩

7. Ibid., 176. ↩

8. Ibid. ↩

9. C.S. Lewis, “Myth Became Fact” in God in the Dock (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), pp. 66-67. ↩

10. J.R.R. Tolkien, “Mythopoeia,” https://www.tolkien.ro/text/JRR%20Tolkien%20-%20Mythopoeia.pdf ↩

11. Tolkien, “Letter 89,” in The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, ed. Humphrey Carpenter (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1966), 116, https://time.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/the_letters_of_j.rrtolkien.pdf ↩

12. Tolkien, “Letter 89,” 116, https://time.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/the_letters_of_j.rrtolkien.pdf ↩