July 10, 2016
The Miracles of God
The miracles that are recorded in the Bible are probably the most contested points of the Christian faith. The fact that the Bible contains records of men overcoming the powers of nature seems to be sufficient grounds to reject the message of the Bible as a whole. Such events are considered to fantastic for the modern man. The unbeliever claims that such miraculous events are the stuff of legend, have no empirical grounds, and belong to an age and people of ignorance. An objector to miracles, David Hume, wrote, “They are observed chiefly to abound among ignorant and barbarous nations; or if a civilized people has ever given admission to any of them, that people will be found to have received them from ignorant and barbarous ancestors, who transmitted them with that inviolable sanction and authority, which always attend received opinions.”1 Therefore, only the unlearned and crude would believe in miraculous as a possibly true event.
However, Scripture contains numerous accounts of miracles. Miracles even take a prominent place throughout Scripture. Therefore, as believers of such miraculous events, we need to make a careful presentation of miracles as possible credible events. This lesson will only provide a brief presentation through a theological and metaphysical explanation. It will by no means provide a thorough defense against opponents of miracles. Such a presentation would also require an explanation of the consistency of eye-witness testimony of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, even extra-biblical testimony and allusions by unbelievers.2
A. Definitions of a Miracle
The debate on miracles occurring the past couple of centuries has caused Christians to re-examine their definition of miracles a couple of times. Therefore it is important that we take our time to understand the correct definition of a miracle and that it be state carefully. An incorrect definition will lead to multiple objections on this topic.
1. A Correct Definition
It seems almost necessary that a person would have taken a study of the providence of God before coming to studying the miraculous works of God. As you will recall, Christ is “upholding all things by the word of his power” (Heb. 1:3). Therefore, before we define a miracle, we must admit that the “Laws of Nature” are only operations of God’s providence. The regular occurrences in nature take place because God is preserving their inherent characteristics. Millard Erickson makes a great illustration of this.
God’s work of preservation also means that we can have confidence in the regularity of the created world, and can plan an carry out or lives accordingly. We take this fact for granted, yet it is essential to any sort of rational functioning in the world. We are ale to sit down in a chair because we known it will not vaporize or disappear. Barring a practical joke by someone while our back is turned it will be there. Yet form a purely empirical standpoint, there is no real basis for such an expectation. In the past, we have found that our expectations of the future proved true when the future became present. Thus, we assume that our present past futures, will be fulfilled. But this argument assumes the very thing that it purports to establish, namely, that future futures will resemble past futures. There really is no empirical basis for knowing the future until we have had a chance actually to experience that the future. While there may be a psychological tendency to expect a certain thing to occur, there are no logical grounds for it, apart from a belief that reality is of such a nature that he will persist in existence. The assumption that matter persists, or that the laws of nature for continue to function, brings us into the realm of metaphysics. The Christian's belief at this point is not in a material or impersonal ground of reality, in an intelligent, good, and purposeful being who continues to will the existence of his creation, so that ordinarily no unexpected events occur.3
This understanding of God’s providence must be put into consideration when defining a miracle. Erickson continues with this idea later on in his discussion of miracles.
Late twentieth and early twenty-first-century science is more likely than was that of the nineteenth-century to recognize natural laws as merely statistical reports of what has happened. From a purely empirical standpoint, one has no logical grounds, but only a psychological inclination, to predict the future on the basis of the past. What is the course of nature is fixed and inviolable, or whether it can be successfully opposed, is a question bringing us into the realm of metaphysics. If we are open to the possibility that there are reality in force outside the system of nature, and miracles are a possibility. It then becomes a question of examining the historical evidence to determine whether they have occurred.4
Therefore, from this understanding that is heavily influenced by our understanding of God’s providence we can finally correctly define a miracle. A miracle is a singular action of God’s providential work done in a manner that is unusual according to what is regularly observed in nature for the purpose of demonstrating God’s glory and power. Many theologians will even call miracles providentia extraordinaria because they are simple an extension of God’s ordinary providential work.
Such extraordinary acts of God can be broken down into two groups of miracles; both still fulfill the purpose of demonstrating God’s glory and power. One category includes miracles that are done with natural explanation given in the account. They are still deemed miracles because they are usually told about beforehand and still point to God’s power. A good example is when Israel received the quails for meat (Num. 11:18–20, 31–33). God told Moses that it would come to pass. Yet the account also explains that “there went forth a wind from the LORD, and brought quails from the sea.” However the event is still meant to point to the power of God. Another example is when Peter finds a coin in the mouth of a fish in order to pay the temple tax (Matt. 17:24–27). While finding a coin in the mouth of a fish can easily be explained by admitting that a fish could have tried to swallow the coin earlier, one cannot explain the statistical probability of having that same fish be the first one that Peter draws up. How could have Christ known of the possibility that there was a fish in the sea that had a coin in its mouth?The majority of miracles fall into the other category—they are not able to be explained by ordinary means. Examples of such miracles are obvious, and they are meant to be obvious. They can be anything from an axehead floating (2 Kings 6:5–7), to the sun staying up extra hours (Josh. 10:12–14) to the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
2. Incorrect Definitions
Incorrect definitions come about when one does not properly consider God’s upholding the universe by the word of His power. The reason this stated is because the argument over miracles has largely been concerning the relation between the “laws” of nature and the will/nature of God. Many, like David Hume, have defined a miracle as, “a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent.”5 Many will use this definition to object to the idea of miracles by showing that it is consistent with a perfect Deity. The argument is that the laws of nature were established by a perfect and immutable God and are therefore perfect and immutable laws. Nothing can break the laws of nature. And since a miracle breaks the laws of nature, God would never allow a miracle to happen nor would He ever perform a miracle. If God performed a miracle, it would be against His own established will in the created order in creation. The only answer that is given to this objection of miracles is that the miracles were always in the will of God, it was a part of His eternal decree.
Another poor definition is that miracles are only manifestations of little known or known laws of nature. Augustine had the same understanding of miracles, “For how is that contrary to nature which happens by the will of God, since the will of so mighty a Creator is certainly the nature of each created thing? A portent, therefore, happens not contrary to nature, but contrary to what we know as nature.”6 However, “the Scriptures not only are silent about any higher law as the cause of miraculous events, but they always refer them to the immediate power of God.”7 God is always meant to be seen as the agency of cause for the miraculous event, especially in the resurrection.
A similar explanation for miracles is that a miracle is when a supernatural power interferes with nature.8 Such an explanation is that a miracle does not break the laws of nature but just simply, the supernatural, God, was not taken into account. “In this view, the laws of nature are not suspended. They continue to operate, but supernatural force is introduced, negating the effect of the natural law.”9 The problem with this definition of a miracles is that it states that God only interacts with nature when He wants. Scripture teaches that He is upholding all things at all times, and not only at the times when He wants to perform a miracle. All of nature is dependent upon God for its existence and movements at all times.
B. Purpose of Miracles
God does not perform miracles merely to excite or awe people. Miracles are performed to reveal the character of God, primarily His sovereignty and power as God. They show that He is able to perform acts no other person could perform and therefore there is no one like Him (Isa. 45:5–7). This was clearly seen during the ten plagues, and the exodus (Exod. 8:10; 9:14–16; 14:17–18, 31). The same power was demonstrated on mount Carmel by the hand of Elijah (1 Kings 18:37–39). Jesus even demonstrates His absolute sovereignty over nature (Mark 4:39–41) and the demonic spirits (Luke 4:36). They are meant to glorify God (John 9:3–4).
Perhaps of greater importance is that miracles are meant to testify to the authority of the spoken prophetic word. They were meant to verify that a prophet’s message was truly from God. This was the case with Moses and the people of Israel (Exod 4:1–9, 30–31). Christ appealed to the miracles He performed as testimony (Matt. 11:2–5; John 5:36; 10:38; 14:11; Acts 2:22). The same was also true of the apostles (2 Cor. 12:12; Heb. 2:3–4). There even instructions that if a man’s prophecy fails, he should be considered a false prophet (Deut. 18:22). A man is not able to perform miracles unless God is with him and his doctrine is true (John 3:2).
An interesting observation and subordinate reason for miracles is that they always meet the needs of people. Elisha multiplied oil for a widow so she could pay her debt (2 Kings 4:1–7). The LORD gave water to Israel so they could be refreshed in the wilderness (Exod. 17:6). And of course, Jesus fed the five thousand when they had no food (Matt. 14:15–21). We could even say that miracles are a restoration of God’s creative work.10 Mankind was not blind, mute, or crippled at creation. And we see Jesus overcoming these effects of sin (Isa. 35:5–6; Matt. 11:4–6) and death (John 11:25, 42–44). Ultimately, Jesus will restore the heavens and the earth so that none of the effects of sin will be present (Rev. 21:4).
____________________
1. David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, 94.
2. Such allusions by unbelievers include: Tacitus, Annals, 15.44; Josephus, Antiquities, 18.63–64. A good book for more information: William Paley, Evidences of Christianity (London: W. Clowes and Sons, 1851).
3. Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 364–5.
4. Ibid, 381–2.
5. Hume, 90n22. Of course Hume uses a definition that is easy for him to defeat in argument but there were many theologians of antiquity that followed this thinking.
6. Augustine, City of God, 21.8.2 (NPNF1 2:459).
7. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1997), 1:625.
8. C.S. Lewis, Miracles: A Preliminary Study (New York: MacMillan, 1947), 10; cf. 10n.
9. Erickson, Christian Theology, 381; cf. Lewis, Miracles, 59–61.
10. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1938), 177.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)