To deny the reality of miracles has been characteristic of infidelity in all ages; but to admit their reality, and at the same tune to deny their evidential value, is a characteristic of semi-rationalism. The latter denial is not uncommon among the critics of the new school who claim to be "evangelical." A brother writes me from [353] Minnesota that a Methodist preacher in his town recently said in a sermon that "the miracles of Christ were no evidence of his divinity, since many others had performed as many, as varied and as great miracles." There are not a few who agree with this preacher, and who also say that it would be easier to convince men of the claims of Christ if the accounts of miracles were out of the way. It is worth our while, then, to occasionally raise the question, What did the miracles prove? Or, if you please, What do the miracles, supposing them to have been wrought, now prove?

      The argument of this Minnesota preacher, fully expressed, is that the miracles of Christ do not prove his divinity, because, if they did, they would prove the divinity of every other man who wrought miracles, which is an absurdity. His argument would be conclusive if the mere working of miracles were proof of the divinity of him who works them; but this can be affirmed by no one who thinks carefully and speaks accurately.

      A miracle wrought by a man is an exercise of divine power entrusted to the man for some divine purpose. When it is wrought as a mere act of mercy, the purpose may be no other than to manifest the mercy of God. But it is doubtful whether a miracle was ever wrought for this purpose alone. Certainly some ulterior purpose can usually be discerned. The miracles of Jesus were nearly all of this class; but to say that they were wrought for the single purpose of showing divine compassion toward the sick, and those oppressed by the devil, would be to ignore a purpose which is easily discerned, which is openly avowed by Christ himself, and which is of much greater importance. When he said to the paralytic, who was let down before him through the roof, "Son, thy sins are forgiven thee," he was charged with blasphemy, [354] because God alone can forgive sins. He then made this argument: "Which is easier to say, Thy sins are forgiven; or to say, Arise, take up thy bed and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, he saith unto the man, Rise, take up thy bed and go to thy house." Now, how did this prove that he had power to forgive sins? Our Minnesota preacher would say, if it proved that he had power to forgive sins, it proved that all others who wrought miracles could likewise forgive sins. And so it would if the naked act of healing contained the proof. But Jesus set up the claim that he could forgive sins, and he wrought this miracle in proof of the claim. If the claim was a false one, then God permitted his power to be used in support of a false claim, which is inconceivable. God can not be a party to deception; and, therefore, when his power is used in proof of any proposition, that proposition must be true. On this ground alone can we regard the argument of Jesus as conclusive; but on this ground it is vindicated beyond the possibility of doubt to all who believe in the moral perfection of God. Now, if the apostles and others who wrought miracles had wrought them in support of the claim that they had power to forgive sins, they would have proved it. But they never set up this claim.

      These considerations prepare the way for seeing how the miracles of Jesus proved his divinity, and how similar miracles wrought by others did not prove their divinity. When Jesus first began to work miracles, he did not connect them with any specific claim with reference to himself, further than to support his proclamation that the kingdom of heaven was at hand. He left men for awhile to form their own judgments as to who he was. But at the close of the first year of his ministry, [354] while on a visit to Jerusalem, he formally proclaimed himself the Son of God, and held tip the miracles which he wrought as proof of that claim. In his speech, recorded in the fifth chapter of John, he first sets forth, in all its fullness, the powers and prerogatives which had been conferred on him as the Son of God (vs. 19-29), and then arrays the witnesses on whom he depends for the support of his claim. He appeals first to the testimony of John, and then says: "But the witness which I have is greater than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to accomplish, the very works which I do, bear witness of me that the Father hath sent me." They could have borne no evidence of the claim which he had just set up had it not been propounded in connection with them. When, just one year previous to this, he first appeared in Jerusalem, and had not yet openly proclaimed himself the Son of God, Nicodemus saw his miracles, and argued logically from them as the matter then stood, saying, "Master we know that thou art a teacher come from God; because no man can do the miracles which thou doest except God be with him." The same logic demanded the conclusion that he was the Son of God, when, in connection with these and later miracles, Jesus formally set forth that claim.

      But our Lord went further. He not only held that his miracles were proof of his divinity, but he went so far as to admit that, without them, their evidence, those who rejected his claim would have been blameless. He said: "If I had not done among them the works which none other did, they had not had sin: but now they have both seen and hated both me and my Father" (John 15:24).

      Miracle-working was then a necessary proof of the claim of Jesus, and it is no less necessary now than [356] it was at the beginning. True, thoughtful men, if we had them not, might come to believe, as many do, that he was a great and good man; but this very belief is infidelity; and men would he unable to logically reach any other, had he not manifested the divine power which dwelt within him by visible and tangible demonstrations.

[SEBC 353-357]