Miracle

The word ‘miracle’ comes from the Lat. miraculum, meaning a wonder. It suggests supernatural interference with nature or the course of events. In the history of the church, miracles have been seen not only as extraordinary expressions of God’s grace, but as divine attestation of the person or the teaching of the one who performs the miracle.
    With the rise of science and historical criticism miracles have come under increasing attack. The classic objections to miracles were summed up by David Hume in his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748), section 10. Hume argued that ‘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.’
    Hume went on to argue that the actual testimony to miracles was weak. The witnesses were frequently ill-educated persons of doubtful reputation. The alleged miracles generally happened in obscure parts of the world. Hume noted the common human propensity to exaggerate, and also argued that miracles in different religions cancel each other out. In view of all this, miracles cannot be used to establish the truth-claims of Christianity. Instead of providing reasons for belief, miracles are themselves the object of a credulous faith.
    Hume’s argument sounds plausible, but it begs key questions. Hume was in effect ruling out the possibility of events for which the science of his day (or any day) could not provide an explanation. By defining miracles in terms of violations of the laws of nature, Hume was excluding the possibility that some miracles might be events in which God controlled the forces of nature.
    The attempt to deny miracles in the name of science is itself an act of faith which presupposes that the world is a system of natural causes which is closed to supernatural intervention. The ‘laws’ of science, however, are generalizations based on repeated, testable experience. They are provisional to the extent that they are open to modification and correction in the light of further understanding. Hume’s argument amounts to a refusal to entertain testimony to any unusual event which lies outside the scope of such provisional generalizations.
    Hume’s arguments concerning the type of testimony to miracles were arbitrary and generalized. It is arbitrary to require as a prerequisite of credibility that witnesses should possess certain educational and cultural qualifications and that miracles should occur only in certain places. Recognition that some people are inclined to exaggerate does not mean that all people exaggerate. In dealing with miracles it is arbitrary to assume that all witnesses are naturally prone to exaggerate and fantasize. If a witness is sceptical to begin with but is convinced by experience, the testimony of that witness gains in credibility.
    The argument that miracles in different religions cancel each other out would be valid if rival religions could adduce comparable miracles to establish their truth-claims. Some religions, however, do not appeal to miracles at all, while others recognize miracles but do not associate them with truth-claims. No major religion claims a miracle comparable with the resurrection of Jesus.
    The credibility of miracles depends upon the world-view within which we view them. If we view the world as a natural closed system, we may recognize unusual events, but we shall refuse to see them as divine miracles. If we see the world as God’s creation which is open to his personal interaction, miracles are feasible.
    While some biblical miracles may be seen as expressions of God’s control over nature, e.g. the events connected with the exodus (Ex. 7–14) and some cases of healing, other miracles may represent the breaking into our present world-order of the order of the world to come. The resurrection of Christ is not only his restoration to life and the Father’s [434] vindication of him. It is also the manifestation of God’s new order in our world (1 Cor. 15).
    In Scripture, miracles are not uniformly distributed throughout biblical history. They occur at certain times associated with God’s special saving work, such as the exodus, the conflict with paganism in the time of Elijah and Elisha (1 Ki. 17; 2 Ki. 4–5), and the ministry of Jesus.
    Scripture also recognizes that false prophets may also perform signs and wonders (Dt. 13:1–5; Mt. 7:22; 24:24; Mk. 13:22; 2 Thes. 2:9). Such signs are to be ignored. An indirect but important testimony to the fact that Jesus performed miracles may be seen in the attitude of Jewish leaders to Jesus. They viewed him as a blasphemous impostor who performed signs and wonders in order to lead the people astray, and accused him of being in league with Satan (Mt. 12:22–32; Mk. 3:6, 20–30; Lk. 11:14–23; Jn. 7:12, 20, 25; 8:59; 10:20, 33; 11:47–53). Under the law such activity was punishable by death (Dt. 13:5; cf. Dt. 18:20).
    The resurrection of Jesus represents God’s reversal of the verdict passed on Jesus by the Jewish leaders. It confirms the character of his works which were the work of the Father and the Holy Spirit through the Son (Mt. 12:18, 28, 32–32; Mk. 3:29; Lk. 4:18; 11:20; Jn. 5:20–29, 36; 8:28; 9:4; 10:37–38; 14:10–11; 15:24; 17:2–10, 21; Acts 2:22; 10:36–38). As such, the miracles of Jesus not only attest Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God; they also point to the Trinity.
    The argument that miracles ceased with the apostolic foundation of the church was forcefully advanced by B. B. Warfield. It has been increasingly challenged, e.g. by convictions about healing among Pentecostals and in the traditional denominations, and by the claims of the charismatic renewal movement about the gifts of the Spirit. A ‘signs and wonders’ approach to evangelism has emerged (appealing especially to Mk. 16:15–20), evincing a possibly manipulative approach to miracles and an unbiblical overemphasis on physical well-being and prosperity. At the same time, the recovery of a holistic understanding of salvation has also contributed to a lively interest in what Scripture should lead the contemporary church to expect from God.