A Review of the Age of Reason (Part 4): Miracles and Prophecy
Evidence
The main thesis of Thomas Paine’s book, The Age of Reason, is that the Bible is not the Word of God. In the process of developing that thesis, he also argues against the virgin birth of Jesus, His atonement for the sins of mankind, and the resurrection, which shall be examined later. But before getting to those topics, it is important to understand the way he tries to undermine Biblical authority. Already noted was his faulty thinking concerning revelation. He had argued that if God reveals something to one person, then it is only valid for that person and no one else. In other words, anyone could lie (or be deceived), claiming that God spoke to him. Of course, God knew of that possibility long before Paine was born; therefore, He provided evidence that demonstrated that He had actually spoken through men. But Paine tries to undermine and prejudice his reader against those proofs.
From pages 79 through 92, he takes issue with what he calls “Mystery, Miracle, and Prophecy. The first two are incompatible with true religion, and the third might always to be suspected” (79). His comments about mystery (which are difficult to follow) are largely irrelevant to this matter, but those on miracles and prophecy do have a bearing on the subject of proof.
After asserting that it is no more difficult for God to create an elephant or a mountain than an atom (which is true), he then states that in another sense, “there is no such thing as a miracle” (82). Presumably, then, Paine does think that the creation of everything from molecules to mountains is miraculous and a demonstration of God’s Divine power, but then he wants to restrict the Almighty’s use of power after He finished the Creation. Paine may have read John 20:30-31 and known that the miracles were recorded to establish the Deity of Jesus (and other truths); therefore, he may intentionally be trying to destroy their effectiveness.
Natural Scientific Principles
First, Paine suggests that some miracles can be explained by natural processes. In time past, for a man to rise in the air would have been considered a miracle, but we know that helium is lighter than air and that man has simply harnessed the helium in a hot air balloon in order to ascend into the air. Likewise, life is restored to someone who appeared to drown and be dead (83). The author of these sentiments has a point, but he does not take on the task of explaining every miracle recorded in the Bible.
With respect to the two that he introduced, he might have had reference to Jesus ascending into heaven and several individuals being brought back to life (raised from the dead). If Jesus had climbed into a hot air balloon and asked Peter to cut the ropes, would the apostles not have noticed that? No such mechanism is described or even hinted at. Also, the question would then become, “Where did He go after He ascended?” If He were merely in a balloon, then He would have had to land somewhere. Furthermore, the whole point of ascension would be nothing more than fraud.
While some who have died have been resuscitated shortly after, is there any record of an instance in which a body revived after preparation for burial and then lying in the grave for four days? Lazarus is the only one in the history of the world that fits into this category. No scientific principle explains how Lazarus could have come back to life after four days. He was raised by the power of God. The mourners who were present with Mary and Martha knew the facts of the matter, and they were present when Jesus arrived, commanded that the stone be removed, and called out, “Lazarus, come forth!” (John 11:43). So compelling was this miracle that the “chief priests took counsel how they might also put Lazarus to death because on account of him many of the Jews...believed in Jesus” (John 12:10-11).
These verses teach that the raising of Lazarus from the dead was such a powerful miracle that the rulers of the Jewish people wanted to destroy both Lazarus and Jesus. They were perplexed as to the way they should proceed. “What shall we do? For this Man works many signs” (John 11:47). Like Paine, however, they would accept anything but the truth. Why were they not convinced by the evidence? They could not deny it, but they refused to accept it. In their case they were afraid that Rome would take away their power (John 11:48). Paine’s main problem seems to be with the Catholic Church and their stifling of scientific truth. True Christianity does not prohibit reason; God wants mankind to think (Isa. 1:18). It is part of what is meant by man being created in the image of God. Any religion that commands people not to reason is false and contrary to the way that God made us. The Scriptures encourage us to evaluate all things (1 Thess. 5:21-22; Acts 17:11). Paine, however, thinks that the Bible and Christianity want to quell scientific truths based on the past actions of one religious group—something he cannot get over.
Tricks
Second, the author suggests that some miracles might be explained “by sleight of hand,” which “have a miraculous appearance” (83). In addition, some have the capability of using “mechanical and optical deceptions” (84). Paine then suggests that God would not stoop to using something that might be equated with magician’s tricks to convince people of the truth. He wrote:
Since, then, appearances are so capable of deceiving, and things not real have a strong resemblance to things that are, nothing can be more incumbent than to suppose that the Almighty would make use of means such as are called miracles, that would subject the person to perform them to the suspicion of being an impostor, and the person who related them to be suspected of lying, and the doctrine intended to be supported thereby to be suspected as a fabulous invention (84).
Well, yes, it is a long sentence; probably it needs to be read more than once—just to be certain of the meaning. Undoubtedly, Paine thinks that his reasoning on this point is impeccable, but it lacks logic in many ways. First, God and His messengers have always been subject to being misunderstood or contradicted—whether miracles are involved or not. Satan added the word not to God’s pronouncement as early as the Garden of Eden and later misapplied the Scriptures, trying to get Jesus to throw Himself off the pinnacle of the temple (Matt. 4:5-7). Second, the first few signs that Moses did before Pharaoh were, in some measure, duplicated by Pharaoh’s court magicians, which probably contributed to Pharaoh’s rejection of Moses and God. The time came when those same magicians recognized and confessed to Pharaoh concerning the plagues: “This is the finger of God” (Ex. 8:19).
When Philip preached in Samaria, the great sorcerer Simon “was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs that were done” (Acts 8:13). Simon knew how to perform tricks and create illusions. The actual power of God was unmistakable to him, however. He knew that there was no natural means by which these things were done; no amount of deception or sleight of hand could accomplish such marvels.
Third, Paine supposes that God would not do anything subject to misinterpretation, but he assumes this is the case because he would not do so if he were the Almighty. How dangerous and presumptuous it is for man to suppose that he knows more than the Creator about how He should or should not do things. God’s Revelation to man and His miracles will always be open to misinterpretation because of one factor that Paine seldom thinks of—the devil, who contradicts God‘s Word at every opportunity and attempts to duplicate His miracles in order to deceive people (2 Thess. 2:9-12). In other words, contrary to Paine’s conclusion, the fact is that if God ever chose to reveal anything to man or offer miracles as proof, Satan is always standing by, ready to distort or detract in any way possible. The author of The Age of Reason, therefore, has an insurmountable problem in the form of a contradiction.
He has said that God has the power to create the universe, which implies that He could so use it again to circumvent the natural principles He set in motion, if He so desired. He also has admitted that God could give a revelation to man if He desired but then says no one is obligated to believe what God told him. So, God has the power to speak to mankind and to work miracles, but, according to Paine, we should discount both of them. Is he not in the unenviable position, then, of telling God that He cannot do what he said He could do?! And this passes for reasoning responsibly?
Showmanship
His third objection against miracles is that it is nothing more than a show that is given to establish a belief. He argues that miracles imply “a lameness or weakness in the doctrine that is preached” (85). No, the greatness of the claims required great proof. Jesus taught that He is the Son of God, that He came down from Heaven, that He would lay down His life and take it again (be resurrected), that He is the light of the world, and that He would judge all mankind, among other things. What would Paine have said about these claims if Jesus had provided no proof? And why would anyone have believed Jesus if He did not demonstrate Divine power? If Jesus and the apostles had not done miracles to establish the truth of their claims, then why would anyone (especially those who crucified Jesus) have believed in a Man put to death as a blasphemer? But when a family member is healed of a physical problem which has been the cause of suffering for years, all know that the recovery is not a trick. Furthermore, what magician has given his life in order to continue an established deception? Yet Jesus and all of the apostles (but one) died rather than deny truth.
Paine wrote that “it is degrading the Almighty into the character of a showman, playing tricks to amuse and make the people stare and wonder” (85). What a crass and prejudiced way to describe God’s providing evidence of the Truth! One would think that the Jews were applauding Jesus and asking Him if He had any more tricks to show them. The fact is that, after His resurrection, Jesus “presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs…” (Acts 1:3). These were not to entertain but to convince. How ironic that Paine accepts the evidence of the Creation as proof for the Creator but then blocks out all of the evidence generated by that same Power to convince us of the Deity of Jesus and the will of God for mankind!
His focus is far too narrow. He asks: “Is it more probable that nature should go out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie?” (86). One might ask that to Pharaoh and the Egyptians. Did Moses lie? (Be sure to ask them in the midst of the thick darkness.) When one to two million Israelites traveled through the Red Sea on dry ground, did nature go out of her course, or did millions tell a lie? When the Egyptians drowned in the Red Sea after the walls of water collapsed, did they die by a lie or thousands of gallons of water? When the walls of Jericho fell down, were all the inhabitants (save Rahab and her family) killed by mere trickery? When Jesus fed 5,000 people with five loaves and two fish and they were all full, had they consumed a lie or actual food? Most of the miracles were witnessed by crowds, even multitudes—not just one individual.
Jonah
As an example of a person telling a lie, the account of Jonah is challenged as a story that someone made up and that no one should believe. Is the story incredible? Yes. Does that make it a lie? No. Jonah does not at all portray himself as a hero. He disobeyed God and tried to run the opposite direction from his task but failed. The second time he fulfilled his mission but was upset that the Assyrians repented. The part about being swallowed by a great fish is not the most important part of the story. First is the rebelliousness of the prophet; second is the amazing repentance of Nineveh. Jonah being swallowed is only the means for Jonah’s change of mind. Had God so desired, He could have changed Jonah’s mind in a number of ways.
It would have been a greater miracle if Jonah had swallowed the great fish, Paine mockingly states (86). The problem is that we have no record of Jonah using this miracle to convince the people of Nineveh of anything. No verse has him saying to the Assyrians, “Repent because I was swallowed by a great fish.” He did not actually want them to repent; so he probably did not mention the event to them at all. Paine concludes that it does not matter if the occurrence was a truth or a lie; we have no basis to believe it (85-86). We do, however, because Jesus endorsed it—twice (Matt. 12: 40-41; 16:4). Paine’s response is: “I have too much respect for the moral character of Christ to believe that he told this whale of a miracle himself” (87).
How interesting! The place the author learned about “the moral character of Christ” is the same place he learned about Jesus speaking of Jonah. The Bible is the only Book that declares both. On what basis does one accept the information concerning Jesus’ moral character while rejecting His recorded teachings? Does Paine just feel that Jesus didn’t say those words (because it contradicts his own view of things), or was that a conclusion that he based on evidence and a logical deduction? The reader knows the answer. Paine has not proved in any way at all that miracles did not exist nor that they provided the evidence man needed to believe what the prophets, the Lord, and the apostles taught.
Prophecy
The author refers to material presented earlier in his book, which is of a peculiar nature. He had taught that the prophecies were the “works of Jewish poets and itinerant preachers, who mixed poetry, anecdote, and devotion together…” (25). But he went even farther, stating that “the word, prophet…was the Bible word for poet, and the word, prophesying, meant the art of making poetry.” Such is not the case in the Greek. Poets occurs once—in Acts 17:28. In the other five New Testament appearances it is translated “doers,” as in James 1:22. The Greek word, prophetees, is translated “prophets.” According to Strong, the Hebrew word translated “prophet” means “an inspired man”; it comes from another word that means “to speak by inspiration.” In the Hebrew neither the word translated “prophet” most frequently [5030], nor the word it comes from [5012] have anything to do with poets or poetry. Since Paine did not cite any source, no one has any idea where he obtained his information, but it appears to be faulty. The prophets often wrote poetically, using literary devices and vivid imagery, but they were not merely poets; they spoke by inspiration. Prophets did not always give predictions. To speak by inspiration can mean simply declaring the way things are at any given time.
Concerning prophecies, Paine says they cannot be obscure or vague enough to fit a variety of circumstances. He insists that “things called prophecies in the book called the Bible come under this description” (89). The fact is that some prophecies are vague—whether Paine likes it or not. But some prophecies are very specific, such as Jesus being born in Bethlehem, which was given more than 600 years before it happened (Micah 5:2). In all, there are more than 300 prophecies of Jesus which He and only He fulfilled. But even if there had only been this one, who could predict something that far into the future without inspiration from One who knows all things?
Fulfilled prophecies and miracles are two of the greatest proofs of the Bible’s inspiration, which is the reason Paine tried to negate them with his human “wisdom.” He failed totally in that regard. Those two evidences are still convincing people more than 200 years after Paine’s departure from this earth. He did not reason well concerning miracles or prophecies. Gratefully, many others have and still do.