Difference between revisions of "Miracles"

== Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament <ref name="term_56608" /> ==

<p> In this article we may consider the meaning of the words used in the NT for ‘miracles,’ and the evidence for the apostolic belief in them; the evidence will then be compared with that for miracles in the succeeding ages, and the evidential value of miracles will be weighed. But the limits assigned preclude a general investigation of the <i> a priori </i> credibility of miracles as such. As, however, this has been done very fully by [[Bernard]] in <i> Hasting's Dictionary of the [[Bible]] (5 vols) </i> iii., it is scarcely necessary here to repeat what has there been well said. </p> <p> <b> 1. Meaning of the words used. </b> -( <i> a </i> ) The principal NT words for what we should now call a ‘miracle’ are σημεῖον, τέρας, δύναμις, ἔργον. Of these, σημεῖον, ‘sign,’ denotes that which conveys spiritual and symbolic instruction; τέρας, ‘wonder’ or ‘prodigy,’ denotes a work above the ordinary working of nature; δύναμις denotes a work showing ‘power’; while ἔργον, ‘work,’ is in itself a neutral word, the context of which in many passages, especially in Jn. (John 5:36 etc.), shows it to denote a ‘miracle’ (so Matthew 11:2; but in John 17:4 the word includes the whole of Jesus’ deeds). It is noteworthy that the mighty deeds of our Lord and His disciples are never called ‘prodigies’ (τέρατα) alone; the only apparent exception to this rule is in Acts 2:19 (‘I will show wonders in heaven’), which, however, is a quotation from Joel 2:30, and ‘wonders in heaven’ are coupled with ‘signs on earth,’ and both are interpreted by St. Peter as ‘powers and wonders and signs’ in Joel 2:22. A [[Christian]] miracle is not a mere prodigy exciting astonishment, but is intended for instruction; and here we see at once the great difference between the NT miracles and most of those of the apocryphal Gospels, which are mere exhibitions without any teaching purpose, and are often repulsive to the Christian sense of reverence. It must be added, also, that herein lies the difference between the NT miracles and most of those commonly known as ‘ecclesiastical’ (see below, 4). The mighty deeds related in the NT did, indeed, excite wonder and fear (Mark 2:12; Mark 4:41; Mark 6:51; Mark 7:37, Luke 7:16, Acts 3:10 f.), but this was not their only or even their chief object. Hence, when τέρας is used it is always combined with σημεῖον (John 4:48, Acts 2:19; Acts 2:43; Acts 4:30; Acts 5:12; Acts 6:8; Acts 7:36; Acts 14:2; Acts 15:12, and [of false prophets] Matthew 24:24, Mark 13:22, and [with δύναμις added] Acts 2:22, Romans 15:19, 2 Corinthians 12:12, 2 Thessalonians 2:9, Hebrews 2:4); δύναμις and σημεῖον are joined in Acts 8:13. It may be noticed that θαῦμα is not used in the NT of miracles, but θαυμάσια (‘wonderful things’) is used in Matthew 21:15, παράδοξα (‘strange things’) in Luke 5:26, ἔνδοξα (‘glorious things’) in Luke 13:17. </p> <p> ( <i> b </i> ) [[Turning]] to the English versions, we are struck by the confusion occasioned by the indiscriminate use of the word ‘miracle.’ In Authorized Versionit often represents σημεῖον (in the singular in Luke 23:8, John 4:54, Acts 4:16; Acts 4:22, and in the plural in John 2:11; John 2:23; John 3:2; John 6:2; John 6:26; John 7:31; John 9:16; John 11:47; John 12:37, Acts 6:8; Acts 8:6; Acts 15:12, Revelation 13:14; Revelation 16:14; Revelation 19:20); in these passages Revised Versionrightly substitutes ‘sign’ except in the text of Luke 23:8, Acts 4:16; Acts 4:22, where ‘miracle’ is with some inconsistency retained. Again, in Authorized Version‘miracle’ represents δύναμις in Mark 9:39, Acts 2:22; Acts 8:13; Acts 19:11, 1 Corinthians 12:10; 1 Corinthians 12:28 f., Galatians 3:5, Hebrews 2:4, while in these passages there is an unfortunate confusion even in the Revised Versiontext (though Revised Version margin gives ‘power’), as we find ‘mighty work’ in the first two passages, ‘miracle’ in the next five, and ‘powers’ in the last; if ‘powers’ was thought somewhat unintelligible, ‘mighty works’ or ‘mighty deeds’ might with a little ingenuity have been used in all these places. The confusion in Authorized Versionis increased by σημεῖα being translated ‘wonders’ in Revelation 13:13 and ‘miracles’ in v. 14, and by δυνάμεις being translated ‘mighty deeds’ in 2 Corinthians 12:12; in Mark 6:52, Authorized Versionunnecessarily inserts ‘the miracle,’ which is not in the Greek. It is a serious misfortune that ‘miracle’ should be so much used in the Authorized Versionto represent σημεῖον, for the connotation of the English word is exactly what that of the [[Greek]] word is not, and it has given the English reader an erroneous idea of the purpose of the works of our Lord and the disciples; it was not so much to produce wonder as belief. </p> <p> <b> 2. Evidence for miracles in the [[Apostolic]] Age. </b> -( <i> a </i> ) <i> The [[Gospels]] </i> are all full of the mighty deeds worked by our Lord, nor is it possible to separate the miraculous from the non-miraculous in these histories. The Synoptic Gospels do not profess to be written by eye-witnesses, but the [[Fourth]] [[Gospel]] does claim to give first-hand testimony (John 21:24, confirmed by many internal indications), though it was written more than half a century after the events which are recorded. It narrates healings (John 4:16 ff., John 5:8, John 6:2), giving sight to the blind (John 9:6 f.), raising the dead (John 11:44), and several ‘miracles of nature’-water made wine (John 2:9), feeding the five thousand (John 6:11 f.), walking on the sea (John 6:19), the miraculous draught of fishes (John 21:8); also the [[Resurrection]] (20, 21) and ‘many other signs’ (John 20:30). It is to be noted that in all the Gospels the evidence for ‘miracles’ of nature is as strong as that for miracles of healing, and that the evidence of Jn. does not differ in kind from that of the Synoptists. For the evidence of the Gospels, reference may be made to Sanday’s article‘Jesus Christ’ in <i> Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) </i> ii. 625 f. [[Though]] the witness of the Synoptists is not in form at first hand, it still rests on very good authority, and there is excellent reason for believing that the evidence of Mk. is in effect that of St. Peter himself (see <i> Dict. of [[Christ]] and the Gospels </i> ii. 121 f., and, for the autoptic character of the [[Second]] Gospel, <i> ib. </i> 124). Also the first-hand evidence of St. [[Paul]] that he himself had the power of working miracles (see below) indirectly gives good testimony to the fact that our Lord worked them, for we can hardly imagine that St. Paul could have thought that he himself had the power from Christ unless his [[Master]] also had it. For a classification of the Gospel miracles see <i> Dict. of Christ and the Gospels </i> ii. 186 ff. (T. H. Wright). </p> <p> Further, in the Gospels it is recorded that our Lord bade the disciples heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils (Matthew 10:8); and that they would have power to do so if only they had faith is implied in 17:20. So in the appendix to Mk. (16:17f.) the signs which would follow believers are said to be casting out devils in Christ’s name, speaking with new tongues, taking up serpents, drinking poison without hurt, and healing the sick by laying on of hands. </p> <p> ( <i> b </i> ) We may proceed to consider how these predictions are borne out by the <i> Acts and [[Epistles]] </i> . It will be convenient to separate the evidence which is at first hand from that which is at second hand. </p> <p> (i.) Under the former head will come those mighty deeds and outward charismata which are attested by those who claimed to see, or to do, or to possess them. In the ‘we’ sections of Acts (accounts of events in which the author took part) and in St. Paul’s Epistles we read of several mighty works, prophecies, and visions, attested at first hand. In Acts 16:18 the [[Python]] is cast out of the ventriloquist girl; in Acts 16:26 there is an earthquake, the doors of the prisons are opened, and the prisoners’ bonds are loosed; in Acts 20:12 we read of the raising of [[Eutychus]] ( <i> q.v. </i> [Note: .v. quod vide, which see.]), though it is not said that he was dead (the reverse seems to be implied in Acts 20:10); in Acts 21:9 of the prophesying of Philip’s daughters; in Acts 21:11 of the prophecy of Agabus; in Acts 28:5 of St. Paul’s shaking off the viper without hurt (cf. ‘Mk’ Acts 16:18 as above); and in Acts 28:8 f. of the healing of Publius’ father by St. Paul by the laying on of hands; and of the healing of others, in which St. Luke himself seems to have taken part (see Acts 28:10 : ‘honoured <i> us </i> ’). Further, the narratives in Acts 9:3 ff; Acts 22:6 ff; Acts 26:12 ff. of the appearances of our Lord to St. Paul at his conversion are brought almost to the level of first-hand evidence by the corroboration of Galatians 1:1-16. St. Paul claimed that Christ worked miracles through him (Romans 15:18 f., 2 Corinthians 12:12), and testifies to the fact that some (not all) of his converts also had the power (Galatians 3:5, 1 Corinthians 12:9 f., 1 Corinthians 12:28-30, 1 Corinthians 14:22). These works, which are instances of πνευματικά or spiritual [gifts], include healings and other ‘powers,’ speaking with tongues and interpretation of tongues, and prophecy. We have it at first hand that the [[Jews]] expected such signs of Christian preachers (1 Corinthians 1:22). The visions of St. Paul are attested by himself in 2 Corinthians 12:2-4. </p> <p> (ii.) Of other works and charismata in the NT, we have not, outside the Gospels, first-hand evidence; yet even what we have must be pronounced exceptionally good when we remember the opportunities which St. Luke had of converse with those who actually saw the events. At the outset we note that St. Peter in his speeches attributes to our Lord ‘power and wonders and signs’ (Acts 2:22), and the healing of demoniacs (Acts 10:38). Then, signs and wonders, healings of the sick and of demoniacs, are attributed to the apostles generally (Acts 2:43, Acts 5:12; Acts 5:16). In Acts 3:7, Acts 9:34 St. Peter heals the lame man and aeneas; in Acts 5:5; Acts 5:10 he inflicts sudden death on [[Ananias]] and Sapphira; in Acts 9:40 he raises [[Dorcas]] from the dead; and in Acts 5:15 the sick are brought so that his shadow may fall on some of them, though it is not said that they were thereby cured. In Acts 6:8 [[Stephen]] works wonders and signs; in Acts 8:6; Acts 8:13 [[Philip]] works signs and powers at Samaria. In Acts 15:12 [[Barnabas]] and Paul relate to the Apostolic [[Council]] how signs and wonders had been worked by them. In Acts 13:11 St. Paul strikes [[Elymas]] blind; in Acts 14:10 he heals the impotent man at Lystra; in Acts 19:11 he works ‘special’ (οὐ τὰς τυχούσας) powers at Ephesus, and even his garments taken to the sick and the demoniacs heal them. In Hebrews 2:4 the first preachers of the gospel are said to have worked signs and wonders and powers. [[Divine]] interpositions are recorded in Acts 5:19; Acts 12:10, where an angel opens prison doors. We read of speaking with tongues and prophesying at [[Pentecost]] (Acts 2:4) and at [[Ephesus]] (Acts 19:6), and the same thing is probably implied in Acts 8:17 f., because [[Simon]] [[Magus]] <i> saw </i> that the [[Holy]] [[Ghost]] was given at Samaria. [[Another]] prophecy of [[Agabus]] (this time at second hand) is quoted in Acts 11:28. Numerous visions of our Lord are recorded: in Acts 1:3 ff. (between the Resurrection and the Ascension), Acts 9:3 ff. etc. (to St. Paul at his conversion), Acts 9:10 (to Ananias), Acts 22:18, Acts 23:11 (to St. Paul at Jerusalem); and something of this sort is implied by the direction of the [[Spirit]] in Acts 16:6 f. [[Visions]] of angels are recorded in Acts 8:28 (to Philip), Acts 10:3 (to Peter), Acts 27:23 (to St. Paul on his voyage to Italy); in Acts 16:9 St. Paul sees the ‘certain man of Macedonia.’ </p> <p> Miraculous deeds are ascribed to non-Christians and also to [[Satan]] and his ministers. The [[Jewish]] exorcists might expect to cast out demons, though as a matter of fact they were not successful in doing so (Acts 19:13 f.). Simon Magus by his ‘magic’ did wonderful things, so that he was named ‘that power of [[God]] which is called Great’ (Acts 8:10). The [[Lawless]] One in 2 Thessalonians 2:9 is marked by ‘power and signs and lying wonders’; in Rev. the second beast (Acts 13:13 f.), the spirits of demons (Acts 16:14), the false prophet (Acts 19:20), who is apparently to be identified with the second beast (see H. B. Swete, <i> Apoc. </i> 2, 1907, p. 206), work signs, just as our Lord had said that false [[Christs]] and false prophets should show signs and wonders (Matthew 24:24, Mark 13:22). </p> <p> <b> 3. Examination of the evidence. </b> -In considering the facts enumerated above, it is quite possible, and even probable, that we must deduct several of the incidents mentioned as not being in any real sense miraculous, even though they might have seemed so to the bystanders. It is, for instance, probable that Eutychus was not really dead. Agabus’ prophecies may have been but shrewd forecasts of events. The viper in [[Malta]] may not in reality have been poisonous. It is conceivable that Dorcas was in a state of coma and not really dead. The visions, the gift of tongues and of prophesying may not belong properly to the category of the miraculous. [[Yet]] when all possible deductions have been made, there can be no doubt that the NT is saturated with miracles, and that the writers were firmly persuaded that [[Jesus]] and His disciples had worked them. </p> <p> How, then, are we to interpret the ‘signs,’ ‘powers,’ and ‘wonders’ of the NT? There is an increasing disposition at the present time among those who formerly would have denied all miracles to accept as genuine many of the NT narratives, especially those of healings and of expulsions of demons; and this is due to the greater knowledge which we now have of the power of mind over matter. But much depends on what we mean by a ‘miracle.’ To the man in the street it usually conveys the idea of a contravention of nature. This, however, is not a good definition. Augustine, in an often-quoted passage, remarks that a miracle ( <i> portentum </i> ) is not against nature, but against <i> known </i> nature ( <i> de Civ. Dei </i> , XXI. viii. 2). What may appear to one eye to be a contravention of the laws of nature is often found in a later age to be in reality in accordance with them. As an example, wireless telegraphy would have seemed in the 1st cent. to be a miracle, whereas we now know it to be a natural phenomenon. Many, therefore, of the ‘signs’ of the NT, not only those which we are now beginning to see are no contravention of nature, such as the healings in nervous cases, but also others, may before long be found to be in accordance with law. When we ourselves shall have risen from the dead, and see ‘face to face,’ we may find that our Lord’s resurrection and our own are the necessary outcome of law. The theory of ‘relative miracles’ was propounded by Schleiermacher, and has perhaps hardly been done justice to, though it is not possible to assent to all his reasoning. The theory substitutes for a contravention of nature a miracle of knowledge. [[Certain]] persons had a greater hold on the secrets of nature than their contemporaries; but this was by a Divine interposition. Even in the case of Jewish and heathen magicians this may to some extent be true; it is not necessary to brand men like Simon and Elymas and [[Apollonius]] of Tyana (a Cappadocian of the 1st cent. of our era) as mere impostors. It follows, then, that while the stories of miracles are narrated in the way that was best suited to the comprehension of the Apostolic Age, several of them, had they been written in our day, would have been given in different language (Sanday, <i> Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) </i> ii. 625a). </p> <p> It is answered to what has been suggested here, that this reasoning makes the miracles to be no miracles at all. But this is not a substantial objection, and is based only on the presupposition that miracles are contraventions of nature. A miracle of knowledge implies Divine intervention as much as-nay, more than-a breach of natural law. Sanday remarks: ‘The essential point is the Divine act; and that, I think, is proved. We are beginning to learn the lesson that an act is not less Divine because it is fundamentally in accordance with law’ ( <i> Life of Christ in Recent Research </i> , p. 218). </p> <p> It may be that what has been said does not directly apply to <i> all </i> the ‘signs’ recorded in the NT. Yet these suggestions may at least give us pause if we are inclined to think that the excellent evidence which we possess cannot stand against the <i> a priori </i> improbability of a miracle happening. </p> <p> <b> 4. [[Miracles]] in the sub-Apostolic and later ages. </b> -It is important to compare NT records with those of subsequent ages in this respect. </p> <p> (1) [[Let]] us first examine two actual miracles which have been thought to have happened in the 2nd century. </p> <p> ( <i> a </i> ) <i> Miracles at Polycarp’s death </i> (see Lightfoot, <i> Apostolic [[Fathers]] </i> , pt. ii.: ‘Ignatius’2, 1889, i. 614 ff., iii. 392 f.).-The Letter of the Smyrnaeans ( <i> [[Martyrdom]] of [[Polycarp]] </i> ), written <i> c. </i> [Note: . circa, about.]a.d. 156 immediately after the event, relates (§§ 9, 15 f.) that on the saint’s entering the stadium, a voice was heard from heaven, saying, ‘Be strong, Polycarp, and play the man’; no one saw the speaker, but the bystanders heard the voice. A little later, they saw a marvel-the flame enveloping the martyr like a sail, and a fragrant odour was perceived. When the executioner stabbed Polycarp to death ‘there came forth [a dove and] a quantity of blood, so that it extinguished the fire. Here the only real ‘miracle’ is the dove; but all mention of it is omitted by Eusebius, who quotes the letter at length ( <i> Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius, etc.) </i> iv. 15). It is therefore probable that περιστερὰ καί is either, as Lightfoot thinks, an insertion by a later writer, perhaps by pseudo-Pionius, a 4th cent. biographer of Polycarp, or else a corruption, perhaps of περὶ στύρακα, ‘about the sword-haft’ (Christopher Wordsworth), or of περὶ στερνά (Ruchat), or of ἐπʼ ἀριστερᾷ (Le Moyne). The life of pseudo-Pionius (for the text and translation of which see Lightfoot, ‘Ign.’2 iii.) describes several miracles, but themanuscriptbreaks off in the middle, and does not give Polycarp’s death: the Life is followed in themanuscriptimmediately by the Letter of the Smyrnaeans. </p> <p> ( <i> b </i> ) <i> The Thundering [[Legion]] </i> (circa, abouta.d. 174).-A letter of [[Marcus]] Aurelius details the incident of the Christian soldiers praying for rain, and of its falling in abundance. The letter, however, is ‘a manifest forgery’ (Lightfoot, ‘Ign.’2 i. 488). There may be elements of truth in the story, but it can hardly be called a miracle, unless every answer to prayer be deemed such. [[Thus]] the two descriptions of actual miracles fail us. </p> <p> (2) Next, let us examine the testimony of the writers who succeeded the apostles. </p> <p> ( <i> a </i> ) Papias, a ‘hearer of John and companion of Polycarp’ (Iren. <i> Haer. </i> V. xxxiii. 4), in words quoted by [[Eusebius]] ( <i> Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius, etc.) </i> iii. 39), says that in the time of Philip the [[Apostle]] one rose from the dead, and that [[Justus]] [[Barsabbas]] (Acts 1:23) drank deadly poison without hurt. This, however, was in the Apostolic Age. </p> <p> ( <i> b </i> ) The writer of the <i> [[Didache]] </i> (10 f.) and [[Hermas]] ( <i> Mand. </i> 11) speak of the existence of true and false prophets in the Christian [[Church]] in their time. </p> <p> ( <i> c </i> ) [[Justin]] testifies to the healing of demoniacs in his day (circa, abouta.d. 150; <i> Apol. </i> ii. 6, <i> Dial. </i> 30, 76: in the last passage he apparently speaks of this as the fulfilment of the promise that they should tread on scorpions, etc., Luke 10:19); he says that one received the gift of healing, another of foreknowledge, etc. ( <i> Dial. </i> 39), and that ‘prophetical gifts remain with us even to the present time’ (82). </p> <p> ( <i> d </i> ) [[Irenaeus]] (circa, abouta.d. 180; Haer. II. xxxii. 4) says that [[Christians]] ‘in Christ’s name perform [works] … some cast out devils … others have fore knowledge and see visions and prophesy, others heal the sick by laying on of hands.… Even the dead have been raised up and remained among us for many years.’ [[Note]] the change of tense here. The raising of the dead in Irenaeus’ own time is not alleged, and the reference may be to Dorcas or to such a case as is mentioned by Papias. Irenaeus ascribes the miracles of heretics to magic. </p> <p> ( <i> e </i> ) At the end of the 2nd cent. Tertullian speaks of the healing of demoniacs in his day: <i> Apol. </i> 23, 37 (‘without reward or hire’), 43 (heathen demoniacs healed). </p> <p> ( <i> f </i> ) In the 3rd cent. [[Origen]] says ( <i> c. Cels. </i> i. 2) that <i> traces </i> of the signs and wonders of the First [[Age]] were still possessed by those who regulated their lives by the precepts of the gospel; and ( <i> ib. </i> iii. 24), speaking of heathen ascriptions of healings to aesculapius, that by the invocation of Jesus’ name some Christians of his time had marvellous power of healing; he would seem to speak chiefly of mental diseases. </p> <p> These passages show that healings, especially in nervous cases, continued in the 2nd cent. and later; but there are indications that even they were not very frequent, and there is no good evidence of the other miraculous works of which we read in the NT being continued. In the <i> Church [[Orders]] </i> we read of the benediction of oil for healing and for the exorcism of candidates for baptism, and these features may probably be due to the lost original of several of the Orders, which may be dated about the beginning of the 3rd century. But here we have passed from the stage of miracle to that of ordinary liturgical usage. At the end of the 4th cent. Chrysostom implies that miracles had ceased-and this in the face of the fact that that century saw the rise of miracle-loving hagiography. He says ( <i> de Sacerd. </i> iv. 6 [416]) that his contemporaries, though they all came together with myriads of prayers and tears, could not do as much as the ‘aprons’ (σιμικίνθια) of St. Paul once did (Acts 19:12). </p> <p> The evidence, then, seems to show that miracles gradually died out, and that after the Apostolic Age they scarcely went beyond ‘healing by suggestion.’ The case is very different after the 4th cent., when lives of the saints and martyrs are full of miracle, and eventually the power of working miracles became a test of saintship, in direct contrast with the restraint of Holy Scripture, in which it is said that ‘John did no sign’ (John 10:41), and no miracle is ascribed to the great majority of the heroes of the OT. Moreover, most of the ‘ecclesiastical’ miracles are mere prodigies, and can in no sense be called ‘signs.’ In many cases they are demonstrably the invention of later biographers, and contemporary writers show no knowledge of them. But we cannot <i> a priori </i> deny the possibility of miracles happening in any age of the Christian Church, and it is quite probable that some mighty deeds of later times, notably healings, may have a modicum of truth in them, and may be such as would have been termed σημεῖα in the NT. (For miracles in the Columban Church see J. Dowden, <i> Celtic Church in [[Scotland]] </i> , London, 1894, ch. viii.) </p> <p> <b> 5. Evidential value of NT miracles. </b> -The object of the miracles was to arrest attention (John 2:23; John 3:2); they were not, however, <i> faith-compelling </i> (Matthew 11:20, John 12:37). Since the apostles believed (see above, <b> 3 </b> ) that even evil men and evil spirits could work miracles, they would not have said that a miracle-worker must be a true teacher. Now a miracle, because of its anomalousness, requires more proof than an ordinary event. The latter, if properly vouched, at once becomes probable; not so the former, unless it has a certain degree of <i> a priori </i> likelihood. Such we find in the belief in the spiritual world. If we believe in a God who is not aloof from the world, but loves His creatures, it is not improbable that He should, for good cause, intervene. The method of intervention may be unusual, and not in accord with the <i> ordinary </i> course of nature as we know it (cf. Augustine, above, <b> 3 </b> ); but if an unusual event such as the [[Incarnation]] happens, it is not improbable that such interventions should accompany it. It follows, however, that we cannot rest our argument for the existence of God, or for the truth of Christianity, merely on the fact that miracles happened, and it was a mistake in the reasoning of the 18th cent. apologists that they to a large extent did so. If for other reasons we believe in the [[Godhead]] of our Lord, we can also believe that He worked miracles, and empowered His disciples to do so-whether for one generation or for longer we need not stop to discuss. </p> <p> It was never professed that miracles were worked to make those who were without any faith believe. The [[Risen]] Christ appeared only to believers, though this does not mean that the disciples believed merely because they wished to believe; here their ‘hardness of heart’ is of great evidential value. And miracles were only worked when there was a certain amount of faith (Mark 6:5, Matthew 13:58; cf. Luke 16:31). Indeed, it is seen that miracles did not make the great impression on the First Age that they would make now. Did they happen now, the impression would be so great that they would be almost faith-compelling, and this is a very good reason for their having ceased. Even the disciples were not so much impressed by the Resurrection that they believed it without any doubt. Some of those who had seen the Risen Lord at first believed, then disbelieved (Matthew 28:17 : ‘some doubted’), and only after a time were fully confirmed in the faith. So, again, though the story of the raising of [[Lazarus]] made a stir at the time in Jerusalem, it is quite intelligible that the impression did not extend very far or last very long. To say, therefore, that St. Mark could not have known of the raising of Lazarus because he does not mention it in the account of Jesus’ ministry in another part of the country is to import 20th cent. ideas into the narrative of the Apostolic Age. </p> <p> The conclusion would seem to be that miracles have never been intended to be a direct proof of the truth of the gospel, or of the holiness of those who worked them; and their absence does not imply want of authority or of saintliness. But when at great crises of the world’s history they were worked, they at once arrested attention, and so led men on to believe in doctrines which for other reasons commended themselves to the sense of humanity. </p> <p> Literature.-Out of a voluminous literature may be mentioned: W. Sanday, <i> Life of Christ in Recent Research </i> , Oxford, 1907, ch. viii., and article‘Jesus Christ’ in <i> Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) </i> ii. (section on the ‘Miracles of Jesus’); J. H. Bernard, <i> Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) </i> iii., article‘Miracle’; T. H. Wright, <i> Dict. of Christ and the Gospels </i> ii., article‘Miracles’; J. R. Illingworth, <i> Divine [[Immanence]] </i> , London, 1898; R. C. Trench, <i> Notes on the Miracles of our Lord </i> 9, do., 1870, which is never out of date; G. Salmon, <i> Non-Miraculous [[Christianity]] </i> , London, 1881. For other works see <i> Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) </i> and <i> Dict. of Christ and the Gospels </i> as above. </p> <p> A. J. Maclean. </p>

<p> <strong> MIRACLES </strong> </p> <p> 1. The narratives <em> a </em> ) In the [[Gospels]] [[Jesus]] is recorded to have cast out devils ( Matthew 8:28; Matthew 15:28; Matthew 17:18 , Mark 1:25 ), restored paralytics ( Matthew 8:13; Matthew 9:6 , John 5:8 ), revived the withered hand ( Matthew 12:13 ), released from the spirit of infirmity ( Luke 13:12 ), stanched an issue of blood ( Matthew 9:22 ), cured dropsy ( Luke 14:2 ), allayed fever with a touch ( Matthew 8:15 ), given speech to the dumb, hearing to the deaf, and sight to the blind ( Matthew 9:33; Matthew 12:22 , Mark 7:35 , Matthew 9:29; Matthew 20:34 , Mark 8:25 , John 9:7 ), cleansed leprosy ( Matthew 8:3 , Luke 17:18 ), and even raised from the dead ( Matthew 9:25 , Luke 7:15 , John 11:44 ). Besides these miracles of healing there are ascribed to Him other extraordinary acts, such as the Stilling of the [[Storm]] ( Matthew 8:26 ), the [[Feeding]] of [[Five]] Thousand ( Matthew 14:19 ) and [[Four]] Thousand ( Matthew 15:35 ), the [[Walking]] on the [[Sea]] ( Matthew 14:28 ), the [[Change]] of [[Water]] into [[Wine]] ( John 2:9 ). The blasting of the [[Fig]] [[Tree]] ( Matthew 21:19 ), and the finding of the [[Coin]] in the Fish’s [[Mouth]] ( Matthew 17:27 ), may possibly be figurative sayings misunderstood. The Two [[Draughts]] of Fishes ( Luke 5:6 and John 21:6 ) may be variant traditions of one occurrence, and, like the recovery of the Nohleman’s [[Son]] of [[Capernaum]] ( John 4:50 ), may be regarded as proof of superhuman wisdom, and not of supernatural power. These miracles are presented to us as the acts of a [[Person]] supernatural both in the moral character as sinless and perfect, and in the religious consciousness as alone knowing and revealing the Father. It was the universal conviction of the early [[Christian]] [[Church]] that after three days He rose from the dead ( 1 Corinthians 15:4 ), and was universally present in supreme power ( Matthew 28:18; Matthew 28:20 ). </p> <p> [[Regarding]] the miracles of Jesus the following general considerations should be kept in view. ( <em> a </em> ) It is impossible to remove the records of miracles from the Gospels without tearing them to pieces, as these works of Jesus are so wrought into the very texture of His ministry. ( <em> b </em> ) The character of the miracles is absolutely harmonious with the power of Jesus; with only two apparent exceptions they are beneficent. The blasting of the fig tree ( Matthew 21:19 ), even if the record is taken literally, may be explained as a symbolic prophetic act, a solemn warning to His disciples of the doom of impenitent Israel. The finding of the coin in the fish’s mouth ( Matthew 17:27 ) would be an exception to the rule of Jesus never to use His supernatural power on His own behalf, and the narrative itself allows us to explain it as a misunderstanding of figurative language. ( <em> c </em> ) The miracles were not wrought for display, or to prove His claims. Jesus rejected such use as a temptation ( Matthew 4:6-7 ), and always refused to work a sign to meet the demands of unbelief ( Matthew 16:4 ). He did not highly esteem the faith that was produced by His miracles ( John 4:48 ). The cure of the paralytic, which He wrought to confirm His claim to forgive sins, was necessary to assure the sufferer of the reality of His forgiveness ( Matthew 9:6 ). The miracles are not evidential accessories, but essential constituents of Jesus’ ministry of grace. ( <em> d </em> ) While faith in the petitioner for, or recipient of, the act of healing was a condition Jesus seemingly required in all cases, while He was prevented doing His mighty works, as at Nazareth, by unbelief ( Matthew 13:58 ), while the exercise of His power was accompanied by prayer to [[God]] ( John 11:41-42 ), His healing acts were never tentative; there is in the records no trace of a failure. ( <em> e </em> ) In view of one of the explanations offered, attention must be called to the variety of the diseases cured; nervous disorders and their consequences did not limit the range of His activity. </p> <p> ( <em> b </em> ) In the Acts the record of miracles is continued. The promise of Jesus to His [[Apostles]] ( Matthew 10:8 , cf. Mark 16:17-18 ) is represented as abundantly fulfilled. In addition to the charisms of <em> tongues </em> and <em> prophecy </em> (wh. see), there were signs and wonders wrought by the Apostles and others ( Acts 2:43; Acts 5:12; Acts 5:18; Acts 6:8; Acts 8:13 ). [[Miracles]] of which further details are given are the restoration of the lame man at the gate [[Beautiful]] ( Acts 3:7 ), and of the cripple at [[Lystra]] ( Acts 14:9 ), the cure of the palsied Æneas ( Acts 9:34 ), the expulsion of the spirit of divination at [[Philippi]] ( Acts 16:18 ), the healing of the father of [[Publius]] in [[Melita]] ( Acts 28:8 ), the restoration to life of [[Dorcas]] ( Acts 9:40 ) and [[Eutychus]] ( Acts 20:10 , the narrative does not distinctly affirm death). This supernatural power is exercised in judgment on [[Ananias]] and [[Sapphira]] ( Acts 5:5; Acts 5:10 ), and on [[Elymas]] ( Acts 13:11 ) acts the moral justification of which must be sought in the estimate formed of the danger threatening the Church and the gospel, but which do present an undoubted difficulty. One may hesitate about accepting the statement about the miracles wrought by Peter’s shadow ( Acts 5:15 ) or Paul’s aprons ( Acts 19:12 ). What are represented as miraculous deliverances from imprisonment are reported both of Peter ( Acts 12:8 ) and of [[Paul]] ( Acts 16:26 ). Paul’s escape from the viper ( Acts 28:3 ) does not necessarily involve a miracle. These miracles, which, taken by themselves as reported in Acts, there might be some hesitation in believing, become more credible when viewed as the continuation of the supernatural power of [[Christ]] in His Church for the confirmation of the faith of those to whom the gospel was entrusted, and also those to whom its appeal was first addressed. In this matter the [[Epistles]] of Paul confirm the record of Acts ( 1 Corinthians 12:10; 1 Corinthians 12:28 , 2 Corinthians 12:12 ). Paul claims this supernatural power for himself, and recognizes its presence in the Church. </p> <p> ( <em> c </em> ) We cannot claim to have contemporary evidence of the miracles of the OT, as we have of those of the NT. The miracles are almost entirely connected either with the Exodus from Egypt, or with the ministry of [[Elijah]] and of Elisha. The majority of the miracles of the first group are not outside of the order of nature; what is extraordinary in them is their coincidence with the prophetic declaration, this constituting the events signs of the [[Divine]] revelation. While the miracles ascribed to Elijah and [[Elisha]] might be considered as their credentials, yet they cannot be regarded as essential to their prophetic ministry; and the variations with which they are recorded represent popular traditions which the compiler of the Books of Kings has incorporated without any substantial alteration. The record of the standing still of the sun in [[Gibeon]] is obviously a prosaic misinterpretation of a poetic phrase ( Joshua 10:12-14 ); behind the record of the bringing back of the shadow on the dial of [[Ahaz]] ( 2 Kings 20:11 ) we may assume some unusual atmospheric phenomenon, refracting the rays of the sun; the speech of Balaam’s ass ( Numbers 22:27 ) may be regarded as an objectifying by the seer of his own scruples, doubts, and fears; the [[Book]] of Jonah is now interpreted not literally, but figuratively; the Book of Daniel is not now generally taken as history, but rather as the embellishment of history for the purposes of edification. The revelation of [[Jehovah]] to [[Israel]] is seen in the providential guidance and guardianship of His people by God, and in the authoritative interpretation of God’s works and ways by the prophets, and in it miracle, in the strict sense of the word, has a small place. While the moral and religious worth of the OT, as the literature of the Divine revelation completed in Christ, demands a respectful treatment of the narratives of miracles, we are bound to apply two tests: the sufficiency of the evidence, and the congruity of the miracle in character with the Divine revelation. </p> <p> <strong> 2. The evidence </strong> . In dealing with the evidence for the miracles the starting-point should be <em> the [[Resurrection]] </em> . It is admitted that the belief that Jesus had risen prevailed in the Christian Church from the very beginning of its history; that without this belief the Church would never have come into existence. Harnack seeks to distinguish the [[Easter]] message about the empty grave and the appearances of Jesus from the Easter faith that Jesus lives: but he is not successful in showing how the former could have come to be, apart from the latter. No attempt to explain the conversion of Paul without admitting the objective manifestation of Christ as risen can be regarded as satisfactory. It may not be possible absolutely to harmonize in every detail the records of the appearances, but before these narratives were written it was the common belief of the Christian Church, as Paul testifies, ‘that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the Scriptures’ ( 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 ). If the Resurrection of Christ is proved, this fact, conjoined with His absolutely unique moral character and religious consciousness, in vests the Person of Jesus with a supernaturalness which forbids our limiting the actions possible to Him by the normal human tests. His miracles are not <em> wonders </em> , for it is no wonder that He should so act, but <em> signs </em> , proofs of what He is, and <em> works </em> , congrnous with His character as ‘ever doing good,’ and His purpose to reveal the grace of the Father. Harnack will not ‘reject peremptorily as illusion that lame walked, blind saw, and deaf heard,’ but he will not believe that ‘a stormy sea was stilled by a word.’ The miracles of healing are not all explicable, as he supposes, by what Matthew [[Arnold]] called <em> moral therapeutics </em> the influence of a strong personality over those suffering from nerve disorders, as they embrace diseases of which the cure by any such means is quite incredible; and the evidence for the <em> cosmic </em> miracles, as the miracles showing power over nature apart from man have been called, is quite as good as for the healing miracles. If the Synoptic Gospels can be dated between a.d. 60 and 90, as is coming to be admitted by scholars generally, the evidence for the miracles of Jesus is thoroughly satisfactory; the mythical theory of Strauss must assume a much longer interval. Harnack regards as ‘a demonstrated fact’ that ‘Luke, companion in travel and associate in evangelistic work of Paul,’ is the author of the [[Third]] [[Gospel]] and the Acts; nevertheless he does not consider Luke’s history as true; but Ramsay argues that the Lukan authorship carries with it substantial accuracy. In his various writings he has endeavoured to show how careful a historian Luke is, and if Luke’s excellence in this respect is established, then we can place greater reliance on the evidence for miracles in the early Church, as well as in the ministry of Jesus. Harnack lays great stress on the credulity of the age in which the Gospels were written; but this credulity was not universal. The educated classes were sceptical; and, to judge Luke from the preface to his Gospel, he appears as one who recognized the duty of careful inquiry, and of testing evidence. The miracles of the Gospels and the Acts are closely connected with the Person of Jesus, as the Word Incarnate and the risen Lord, and the credulity of the age does not come into consideration unless it can be shown that among either the [[Jews]] or the [[Gentiles]] there was a prejudice favourable to belief in the [[Incarnation]] and the Resurrection. The character of the miracles, so harmonious with the Person, forbids our ascribing them to the wonder-loving, and therefore wonder-making, tendency of the times. </p> <p> Some indications have already been given in regard to the evidence for the miracles of the OT. The frequent references to the deliverance from [[Egypt]] made in the subsequent literature attest the historical reality of that series of events; and it cannot be said to be improbable that signs should have accompanied such a Divine intervention in human history. Some of the miracles ascribed to Elisha are not of a character congruous with the function of prophecy; but it may be that we should very cautiously apply our sense of fitness as a test of truth to these ancient narratives. In the OT history, <em> [[Prophecy]] </em> (wh. see) was the supernatural feature of deepest significance and highest value. </p> <p> <strong> 3. Explanations </strong> . Admitting that the evidence is satisfactory, and the miracles are real, what explanations can be offered of them? ( <em> a </em> ) One suggestion has already been considered; it is favoured by Harnack and Matthew Arnold: it is that one person may exercise over another so strong an influence as to cure nervous disorders. The inadequacy of this explanation has been shown; but even were it admissible, a reason would need to be given why Jesus used a means not known in His age, and thus anticipated modern developments of medical skill. It is certain that Jesus worked His miracles relying on the Divine powers in Himself; whether in any cases this obscure psychic force was an unknown condition of His miracles is a matter of secondary importance. </p> <p> ( <em> b </em> ) A second suggestion, made by the late [[Duke]] of [[Argyll]] ( <em> [[Reign]] of Law </em> , p. 16), is that God chooses and uses laws unknown to man, or laws which, even if he knew, he could not use. He thinks that this would meet the prejudice of scientific thought against effects without causes. This explanation recognizes that miracles are not explicable by the laws of nature as known to man, and that it is of God’s free choice that for certain ends He uses means otherwise unknown. As these laws are quite hypothetical, and as this use of them only occasionally is not at all probable, this explanation does not appear to make miracles any more credible. </p> <p> ( <em> c </em> ) We may now attempt to define more closely what we mean by a miracle. It does seem, on the whole, desirable to restrict the term ‘miracle’ to an external event of which there is sensible evidence. [[Inward]] changes, such as in the prophetic inspiration, or the religious conversion of an individual, however manifest the Divine presence and action may be for the person having the experience, should not be described as miracles, unless with some qualification such as <em> spiritual </em> or <em> moral </em> . The negative feature of the external event which justifies our describing it as a <em> miracle </em> is that it is inexplicable by the natural forces and laws as known to us. The will of man is a force in nature with which we are familiar, and therefore the movements of the body under the control of the will are not to be described as miraculous. We say more than we are justified in saying if we describe a miracle as an interference with the laws and forces of nature, or a breach in the order of nature; for just as the physical forces and laws allow the exercise of human will in the movements of the body, so the power that produces the miracle may, nay must, be conceived as so closely related to nature that its exercise results in no disturbance or disorder in nature. The miracle need not interfere with the continuity of nature at all. The modem theory of [[Evolution]] is not less, but more, favourable to the belief in miracle. It is not a finished machine, but a growing organism, that the world appears. Life transcends, and yet combines and controls physical forces (Lodge’s <em> Life and [[Matter]] </em> , p. 198). [[Mind]] is not explicable by the brain, and yet the will directs the movements of the body. There is a creative action of God in the stages of the evolution, which attaches itself to the conserving activity. Applying the argument from analogy, we may regard the Person of Christ and the miracles that cluster round His Person as such a creative action of God. If we adequately estimate the significance of the Exodus in the history of mankind, the providential events connected with it will assume greater credibility. But there is a final consideration. The purpose of God in Christ is not only perfective the completion of the world’s evolution; it is also redemptive the correction of the evil sin had brought on the human race. It was fitting that the redemption of man from sin should be accompanied by outward remedial signs, the relief of his need and removal of his sufferings. God is without variation and shadow that is cast by turning in His purpose, but His action is conditioned, and must necessarily be conditioned, by the results of man’s use of the freedom which for His wise and holy ends He bestowed. He may in His action transcend His normal activity by a more direct manifestation of Himself than the natural processes of the world afford. The consistency of character of a human personality is not disproved by an exceptional act when a crisis arises; and so, to deal effectively with sin for man’s salvation, God may use miracles as means to His ends without any break in the continuity of His wisdom, righteousness, and grace. </p> <p> <strong> 4. Objections </strong> . It seemed desirable to state the facts, the proofs for them, and the reasonableness of them, before taking up the objections that are made. These objections refer to two points, the possibility of miracle at all, and the sufficiency of the evidence for the miracles of the Bible. Each of these may be very briefly dealt with. ( <em> a </em> ) For <em> materialism </em> , which recognizes only physical forces; and <em> pantheism </em> , which so identifies God and man that the order of nature is fixed by the necessity of the nature of God; and even for <em> deism </em> , which confines the direct Divine activity to the beginning, and excludes it from the course of the world, miracles are impossible. <em> [[Agnosticism]] </em> , which regards the ultimate reality as an inscrutable mystery, is under no logical compulsion to deny the possibility of miracles; Huxley, for instance, pronounces such denial unjustifiable. Two reasons against the possibility of miracles may be advanced from a <em> theistic </em> standpoint. In the interests of science it may be maintained that the <em> uniformity of nature excludes miracle </em> ; but, as has just been shown, the theory of Evolution has so modified the conception of uniformity that this argument has lost its force. Life and mind, when first appearing in the process of evolution, were breaches in the uniformity. The uniformity of nature is consistent with fresh stages of development, inexplicable by their antecedents; and only when science has resolved life and mind into matter will the argument regain any validity. In the interests of philosophy, it may be argued that <em> miracles interrupt the continuity of thought </em> : the world as it is is so reasonable (idealism) or so good (optimism) that any change is unthinkable. But the affirmation ignores many of the problems the world as it is presents: sin, sorrow, death are real; would not the solution of these problems give both a more reasonable and a better world? and if miracles should be necessary to such a solution, they are thinkable. Again, is it not somewhat arrogant to make man’s estimate of what is reasonable and good the measure of God’s wisdom and grace? </p> <p> ( <em> b </em> ) The more usual objection is the <em> insufficiency of the evidence </em> . Hume laid down this criterion: ‘No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish. Or briefly, it is contrary to experience that a miracle should be true, but not contrary to experience that testimony should be false.’ But to this statement it may properly be objected, that it assumes what is to be proved; for, while it may be contrary to ordinary experience that miracles happen, what the defenders of miracles maintain is that there have been exceptional experiences of miracles. If miracles were common, they would cease to be so described; their uncommonness does not prove their incredibility. Although the test is one that has no warrant, yet it may be argued that Christ’s character and resurrection would stand it. It is less credible that the portrait of Jesus given in the Gospels was invented, than that Jesus lived as there depicted. It is less credible that the [[Apostolic]] faith in the risen Lord, and all it accomplished, should have its origin in illusion, than that He rose from the dead. The improbability of miracle is usually the tacit assumption when the sufficiency of the evidence is denied. If the relation of God to the world is conceived as a constant, immanent, progressive, perfective, redemptive activity, the probability of miracles will be so great that the evidence sufficient to prove an ordinary event will be regarded as satisfactory, provided always that this test is met, that the miracle is connected with the fulfilment of the Divine purpose, and is congruous in its character with the wisdom, righteousness, and grace of God. </p> <p> <strong> 5. [[Value]] </strong> . A few words may in conclusion be added regarding the value of the miracles. The old apologetic view of miracles as the credentials of the doctrines of [[Christianity]] is altogether discredited. It is the truth of the doctrines that makes the fact of the miracles credible. It is Christ’s moral character and religious consciousness that help us to believe that He wrought wonderful works. The NT recognizes that a miracle proves only superhuman power ( 2 Thessalonians 2:9 ); only if its character is good, is it proved Divine. In the OT prophecy is declared false, not only when unfulfilled ( Deuteronomy 18:22 ), but also when it leads to idolatry ( Deuteronomy 13:3 ). The moral test, which can be applied to the miracles of the Gospels, shows the irrelevancy, not to say the flippancy, of Matthew Arnold’s sneer about the turning of a pen into a pen-wiper as the proof of a doctrine. The miracles of the Gospels are constituent elements of Christ’s moral perfection, His grace towards men. While the miracles are represented in the Gospels as not in themselves sufficient to generate faith ( John 11:46; John 12:37 ), yet it is affirmed that they arrested attention and strengthened faith ( Matthew 8:27 , Luke 5:8; Luke 7:18 , John 2:11; John 6:14 ). Christ Himself is reported as appealing to them as witness ( John 5:36 ), but the appeal seems deprecatory, as elsewhere He rates low the faith that rests on seeing miracles ( John 4:48; John 14:11 ), while condemning the unbelief that resists even this evidence ( Matthew 11:20 ). At the beginning of the Christian Church the miracles had some value as evidence. Today the change Christ has wrought in human history is the most convincing proof of His claim; but we must not ignore the value the miracles had when they occurred, and their value to us still as works of Christ, showing as signs His grace. </p> <p> Alfred E. Garvie. </p>

<ref name="term_56608"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/hastings-dictionary-of-the-new-testament/miracles Miracles from Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament]</ref>

<ref name="term_67663"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/morrish-bible-dictionary/miracles Miracles from Morrish Bible Dictionary]</ref>

<ref name="term_18865"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/bridgeway-bible-dictionary/miracles Miracles from Bridgeway Bible Dictionary]</ref>

<ref name="term_51351"> [https://bibleportal.com/encyclopedia/cyclopedia-of-biblical-theological-and-ecclesiastical-literature/miracles Miracles from Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature]</ref>