NIV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible CBSB_Digital Sampler | Page 25

Introduction to the Gospels & Acts  | 1601
parallel to Lk 6:29) or treating all remarriage as adultery (Mk 10:11 – 12, the literal point being found
in 10:9). Such observations and cautions are very important, but we should also be careful not to
miss the purpose of hyperbole: to graphically underline the point being made. Thus, for example,
we should not downplay ­Jesus’ commands to give all to those in need (Mk 10:21; Lk 12:33; 14:33).
Even if we do not all relinquish literally all our possessions to follow ­Jesus (cf. Mt 27:57; Lk 10:38;
Ac 2:44 – 45; 12:12 – 13), we surrender our ownership of them. If J ­ esus is genuinely Lord of our lives,
then he is Lord also of our possessions, and we must use them as wisely and as generously as he
would desire. Likewise, even if we believe that treating all remarriage as adultery may go too far
(Mt 5:32, 19:19), we must work hard to preserve and nurture marriages, viewing as sacred what
God has joined together.
Understanding how J ­ esus spoke can help us understand how best to obey and apply his teach-
ings today.
Miracle Stories
In the West, skepticism about the Gospels started especially because some Western philosophers
had pronounced miracles impossible. For such scholars, the Gospels were not trustworthy because
they included miracle accounts; one nineteenth-century scholar, David Strauss, thus regarded the
Gospels as late and their miracle accounts as legends and myths. Strauss did so because of his
philosophic assumptions, not because of evidence: in fact, one of his own friends was healed when
a German Lutheran pastor prayed for him.
Historically, the argument against the Gospels’ miracle reports followed this logic: miracles are
not believable because respectable eyewitnesses (those known to the upper-class, elite people
who made this argument) do not report them happening. Therefore if some otherwise reputable
eyewitnesses do claim miracles happening, they are not to be believed. This is, of course, a circular
argument, but it influenced many scholars who were or became skeptics in reference to the Bible.
They assumed that miracle reports cannot come from eyewitnesses, because miracles cannot
happen. Therefore, in their view, any reports of significant miracles do not reflect early testimony,
but rather a process of legendary growth over generations (or at least decades).
Today, however, one can easily demonstrate that these assumptions about eyewitnesses are false,
even in the West. Worldwide, literally hundreds of millions of people, from a wide range of denomi-
nations and church traditions, claim to have witnessed or experienced divine healing. Sources in
China attribute to healing experiences millions of new Christian conversions over the course of two
decades. In a survey conducted several decades ago in one large city in India, more than 10 percent
of non-Christians claimed to have been cured when Christians prayed for them in ­Jesus’ name.
The sorts of miracles reported by eyewitnesses today include the same range as in the Gospels.
A skeptic may find other explanations for many of the cures, but it is simply impossible empirically
to deny that eyewitnesses otherwise known to be reliable do claim the sorts of cures reported
in the Gospels. In other words, the miracle accounts in the Gospels can reflect information from
eyewitnesses, exactly as can any of the other accounts in the Gospels.
How would ancient hearers have learned from the miracle stories in the Gospels? Presumably
they would have learned from them the way that ancients believed they learned from accounts
of cures in Greek temples, or the way that Christians in many cultures hear the Gospels’ miracle
stories today: they would have experienced these accounts as invitations to faith in the power and
love of J ­ esus, whom we as Christians believe has risen and remains alive and active today.
Lost “Gospels”?
Many people today speculate about the influence of “lost Gospels.” Although this is mostly sensa-
tionalism, some early accounts of ­Jesus’ life were undoubtedly lost. Luke mentions that “many”
wrote accounts about J ­ esus before Luke did, but the majority of scholars believe that only one of
these that he has in mind (Mark) survived intact. A majority of scholars also believe that Matthew