The Case For Miracles
Did Jesus of Nazareth once feed a throng of five thousand men, besides women and children by direct multiplication of five loaves and two fish? Did he later repeat the action with four thousand men plus women and children? Did he calm the waves of the Sea of Galilee with a spoken word? Did he raise the daughter of Jairus, the young man of Nain, and Lazarus of Bethany, from the dead?
Are these legends which grew up as men told about his activities? Is the language employed in the realm of myth? Must we strip it off and seek for the kernel of fact hidden within it?
In simple trusting faith I accept the accounts as historical and factual. I am quite content to discuss them as genuine miracles. Miracles have to do with demonstrations of power and the God whom I serve is unlimited in power. That is why the word "miracles" is used for our benefit. There are no miracles with God for what appears supernatural to us is merely natural to Him. There can be no power above or beyond the source of all power. Nothing is "super" to one who is over all. But since the terms related to miracles are employed for our benefit perhaps we should seek to understand those terms for by doing so we can learn something of the nature of miracles.
The first word we shall note is "wonders." This has to do with the effect of the miracle upon the beholder. The act performed is strange and excites amazement. Here the effect is put for the cause and the act is termed a wonder, although it should be remarked that the original is always translated in the plural. The astonishment betokens both the nature of the act and the limitations of the one so affected. Certainly the arousing of amazement is not the chief aim, perhaps not even a lesser aim, of the miracle but it can be used to testify of the nature of the act. It provides another way by which God's strength is exhibited in our weakness.
It is possible that we have lessened the force of "wonders" by our common usage. We say that a man who remodels an old house "worked wonders" with it; or that a woman who designs her own dresses "worked wonders" with the material. In such cases the result is a matter of skill rather than of power, and it is extraordinary because of aptitude rather than supernatural endowment. We are prone to mistake commendation and approval for the sense of awe and amazement with which men view a real miracle.
Let us take a miracle of Jesus for an example. When he came to Capernaum upon one occasion the news rapidly circulated that he was at home. People came from every quarter in such numbers that they filled the house and barred the way to the door. Four men carrying a paralytic could not get close so they lifted the cripple to the roof, removed a sufficient number of tiles and let him down in the immediate presence of Jesus. Upon beholding this demonstration of their faith Jesus at once declared that the man's sins were forgiven. Some of the scribes were present and these questioned in their hearts if Jesus was not guilty of blasphemy by assuming the power of God to forgive sins.
Jesus pointed out to them that it was much easier to tell a man his sins were forgiven than to tell him to arise and walk. The bystanders could not tell whether one had succeeded in forgiving sins but they could immediately detect any failure to cure his infirmity. Jesus then rested his power to forgive sins in a physical demonstration and instructed the man to take up his pallet and go home. Immediately the man arose, took up his pallet and walked out in the presence of them all. It is written, "So that all were amazed and glorified God, saying, `We never saw anything like this.'" It was such an effect which caused the word "wonders" to be used.
It may be argued that there is nothing in such an effect which indicates supernatural power, and this is correct when the term is used by itself. One who has dwelt all his life upon the plains may feel a sense of awe when he first surveys the lofty snow-covered peaks of a lordly mountain range. Another may have the same sensation when he stands upon the ocean beach and sees the rolling swells foam themselves out in breakers at his feet. In many such experiences we may say, "We never saw anything like this." For this reason it is well to remember that the word "wonders" never appears as a designation of miracles by itself. Every other term is used upon occasion without an accompanying expression but "wonders" is always employed in conjunction with others.
The effect upon the observer is not the primary
purpose of the acts. They were not done simply to startle, frighten or amaze
the onlookers. The fact that they did so indicates that they were outside
the realm of previous knowledge of those who beheld them, and could be measured
by no law with which they were familiar. Thus they were calculated to secure
attention to the message upon the part of those who saw and who gathered
close to those who performed the acts. (Cp. Acts 3:10, 11).
Those who go forth on a mission representing a sovereign are expected to produce the necessary credentials to validate their authority. One who claims to represent a natural realm requires only natural certification; one who is an envoy of a supernatural power must exhibit supernatural credentials. The word "signs" is thus employed to designate miracles which are demonstrations to prove the divine mission of one who performs them.
Since men in the ages prior to Christ were dispatched as representatives of God we would expect God to grant them the power to perform such acts as would prove their claims to be legitimate. A good example is found in the case of Moses. After he had been in the land of Midian for forty years God prepared to send him back to Egypt to deliver His people. He had to establish himself both in the eyes of the Israelites and of Pharaoh. Accordingly it is said, "Then Moses and Aaron gathered together all the elders of the people of Israel. And Aaron spoke all the words which the Lord had spoken to Moses and did the signs in the sight of the people. And the people believed."
God knew that Pharaoh would demand supernatural proof that Moses was sent as his ambassador so we read, "And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, `When Pharaoh says to you, Prove yourselves by working a miracle, then you shall say to Aaron, Take your rod and cast it down before Pharaoh that it may become a serpent'" (Exodus 7:9).
The apostles were ambassadors of Christ and God made his appeal through them (2 Corinthians 5:20). For this reason the apostle writes, "The signs of a true apostle were performed among you in all patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works" (2 Corinthians 12:12).
When Jesus cleared the temple of commercial hucksters and money-changers on the basis that they were desecrating his Father's house, the Jews said to him, "What sign have you to show us for doing this?" (John 2:18). Upon one occasion the Pharisees and Sadducees came to test him by asking him to show them a sign from heaven. He reminded them that when it was evening they predicted fair weather because the sky was red, and when it was morning they predicted stormy weather when the sky was the same color. He said, "You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times."
This is an interesting criticism. These men had learned from observation that the face of the sky betokened certain conditions, but they were not as careful in their evaluation of history, else they would have seen the prophecy of God being fulfilled in their day. The oracles of God which they diligently studied had come as a revelation from heaven and constituted a sign of God's purpose, but their lives were not ordered by it.
When Jesus declared that "an evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign," he did not imply, as so many think, that they were evil because they asked for a sign. But they had God's revelation which they ignored and thus were guilty of evil and adultery contrary to God's law which was a sign unto them. To ask for a sign from heaven while trampling under foot the covenant of heaven was gross hypocrisy. Thus Jesus said to them, "It is Moses who accuses you, upon whom you have set your hope. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me" (John 5:46).
Of those who reject the miracles of Christ we
have a perfect right to demand that they specify the kind of proof one would
need to present who claimed to be the Son of God sent down from heaven. Granted
that one came who professed to be from heaven, what credentials would be
demanded of him? Would it not be necessary for him to do such things as man,
unaided by direct divine endowment, could not possibly do? Would not his
acts have to be such as transcended all human experience? To reject the miracles
of Jesus because they are incredible when measured by human performance is
ridiculous. It is this very quality which makes them valid for the purpose
for which they were intended.
Our word "dynamic" comes from the Greek dunamis, which also gives us our English words dynamo and dynamite. This is the word which is translated by "miracle" in Acts 2:22; 19:11; 1 Corinthians 12:28; and Galatians 3:5. It is rendered "wonderful works" in Matthew 7:22, and "mighty works" in other places.
Dunamis signifies inherent power, that is, the power which belongs to a person or thing by reason of the nature of that person or thing. All power is of God and the performance of those works or deeds which are beyond the ability of the one who does them signifies that he is endowed of God for such special work.
It is sometimes argued that since all nature is a source of wonder to the one who beholds it, and is a demonstration of divine power, there is no such thing as a miracle. All is either miracle, or nothing is. It is true that there are many forces in operation about us which we cannot understand or measure. We are caused to wonder at the power which we call gravitation, an arbitrary term we have coined to designate something we do not comprehend, and the same is true with electrical energy and magnetic force. By observation and experiment we have learned that these proceed by what we call "laws" and we can define those "laws" and anticipate action and reaction in harmony with them.
Even those who are not versed in knowledge of energy are fully aware of the marvels of the common-place. The planting of a tiny seed is the prelude to a bursting forth of a beautiful flower. A small acorn develops into a stately oak. A black cow eats green grass and produces white milk with yellow butter in it. Various kinds of animal life eat the same substance, yet it is converted into hair, wool or feathers depending upon the kind of animal or bird. Even the process of human procreation and birth has much about it to produce awe in the heart of one who meditates upon it.
Since we are all directly and constantly involved in and with phenomena which are mysterious it is reasoned that we have no right to separate or set apart certain events or incidents and label them "miracles." Those who seek a reply for this are often trapped by their own desire for distinction into the hasty conclusion that what we call natural is not wonderful. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The multiplication of fish by the spawning process so that two can produce enough to feed a multitude, or the increase of grain a hundredfold from the seed implanted in the soil, is as much a demonstration of divine power as the act of Jesus in feeding the throngs in his day. It is not that one is less a mighty work than the other; it is simply that one is different from the other.
In one case there is the constant manifestation of power to all men everywhere. In the other there is a specific breakthrough for a definite purpose. One has as its chief design the constant sustenance of life, the other has the added purpose of being a sign leading to faith in the one who intervenes.
This will be a good time to point out the fallacy involved in saying that a miracle is contrary to the laws of nature. In the first place the expression "laws of nature" may be without foundation in fact. If it means that God drew up or designed certain codes or well-defined rules by which to govern nature we know of nothing which indicates it. God, who made the universe, controls it by the constant application of the same power which formed it. He upholds all things by the word of his power. By him all things consist. He is a God of order and consistency and his power is applied with such regularity and continuity that it appears unto us as if it were being channeled by well-defined legal actions or axioms. We speak of "laws of nature" as another, and human way, of expressing the divine will. It is that will which we see operating.
Miracles are not contradictory to "the laws of nature" for this would make them contrary to the will of God. They are simply applications of divine power upon a higher level or plane. The power of God operates upon three such levels, and we designate them natural, providential and supernatural. When an aircraft which has been flying at ten thousand feet is ordered to fly at fifteen thousand feet, it does not contradict its flight at a lower level, for the levels are parallel and do not bisect each other. It does not alter its goal or destination.
When Jesus restored the withered hand of the man on the sabbath, he was not acting in violation of nature. This was exactly what the physicians would attempt to accomplish by use of natural skills and remedies. It was the crippling condition which was contrary to nature. God made man to employ all of his members and functions. This is the normal state. When one is unable to use an arm that is abnormal. Thus Jesus was acting in harmony with the natural and not in opposition to it.
The temporary suspension of a "law of nature" by exertion of a superior force or power is not a violation of the rules of nature for there is an obvious law to govern all laws--that when a greater power is brought to bear the lesser must always give place. In the old covenant scriptures we have the case of the man who borrowed an axe and while chopping near a stream the head of the axe flew off and into the water. The prophet stretched his rod over the water and the axe floated up and on the surface. The law of gravity was temporarily suspended or reversed, but this was not the violation of the law. The authority which provides or prescribes a law may make application of that law to accomplish good, which should be the purpose of all law.
The turning of the water into wine was simply increasing the tempo of nature. All wine results from water which has been drawn from the soil into the globules or containers called grapes. It is then extracted and allowed to condition itself by fermentation. Jesus accomplished in a moment what otherwise required several months but the natural process and the miracle produced the same result, so one did not act contrary to, or in opposition to the other.
Since this little volume is designed to be a testimony of personal faith, it is essential that we devote some attention to those who object to miracles as impossibilities or absurdities. One cannot ignore the attacks and be honest with himself. Faith is not strengthened by closing the eyes but by opening them. If the shield will not quench the fiery darts it is of no value. The user cannot employ a shield properly by hiding it from the arena of conflict. The shield of faith was not intended for a museum but for the battlefield.
Perhaps the most influential antagonist of miracles was the Scottish philosopher, David Hume, who was born in Edinburgh in 1711. His writings were accepted with tremendous joy and acclaim by the skeptical world. It is not too much to say that a great deal of the opposition to miracles in our own day is simply a repetition of his arguments. Perhaps one thing that has encouraged the popularity of his views is that, once adopted, all need for examination of the Bible and its record of miracles is rendered unnecessary. This approach will commend itself to those who wish to doubt without taking the trouble to personally investigate the evidence. All they need to do is to assume the postulate of Hume and all need for examination is rendered useless. The position of Hume is summarized in the statement, "No conceivable amount of testimony can prove a miracle."
A summary of his argument can be gleaned from the Encyclopedia Brittanica, which records it in these words:
Our belief of any fact from the testimony of eye-witnesses is derived from no other principle than our experience of the veracity of human testimony. If the fact attested be miraculous, there arises a contest of two opposite experiences, or proof against proof. Now, a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and, as firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as complete as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined; and if so, it is an undeniable consequence, that it cannot be surmounted by any proof whatever, derived from human testimony.
Mr. Hume has been acknowledged as one of the most ingenious writers who has ever entered the lists to contest against miracles. Dr. George Campbell, of Aberdeen, who was a contemporary of Hume, and who wrote "A Dissertation on Miracles," in reply to his thesis, said, "The Essay on Miracles deserves to be considered as one of the most dangerous attacks that have been made on our religion." The reader who is interested in historical aspects will find it interesting to read the letters exchanged by these philosophers. They are models of courtesy and restraint when one considers the explosive atmosphere in which they were written.
Our own approach will be rather simple. I am not a philosopher and do not possess the ability for deep philosophical penetration. It is obvious that if one admits the premises of Hume his conclusions will follow. But we believe there are some fallacious assumptions which, once recognized, will demonstrate the emptiness of his attack.
For instance, what is meant by the expression "Our belief of any fact from the testimony of eye-witnesses is derived from no other principle, than our experience of the veracity of human experience"? This is the foundation of the whole structure of attack on miracles. Miracles are regarded as contrary to experience and for that reason are opposed to the very grounds or bases of evidence, and thus are destructive of themselves by negation of the evidence.
Hume declared, "The very same principle of experience, which gives us a certain degree of assurance in the testimony of witnesses, gives us also, in this case, another degree of assurance, against the fact which they endeavor to establish; from which contradiction there necessarily arises a counterpoise, and mutual destruction of belief and authority."
To what experience are miracles contrary? It is not enough to say they are contrary to personal experience for the question under consideration is the testimony, not of our own senses, but of eye-witnesses. Moreover, the thesis of Hume is that they are contrary to our experience of the veracity of human testimony. This is the experience upon which all faiths must rest according to the philosopher, therefore, it is this experience to which miracles must be opposed if the credibility of miracles is to be destroyed.
But this is a little absurd. The very discussion about miracles arises because men have testified that they have observed or experienced such. If there had never been an allegation that miracles occurred there would have been no well-designed opposition to them by Hume and others. That miracles have been a historical fact has been made a part of human testimony. To deny that testimony without showing its invalidity due to the character of the witnesses, or the nature of the testimony, is not to destroy miracles, for they are untouched by such a procedure. Rather it is to destroy our experience of the veracity of human testimony, the very foundation claimed for the skeptical superstructure.
Is it a fact that our belief of testimony is founded upon our experience of its veracity? We think not, and if we are correct, the opposition falls because of a fallacy in its main support. All we need to do to show its utter weakness is to demonstrate that there are those whose experience is at a minimum and yet who act upon testimony given, in full belief. No better example can be given than that of a little child. Without experience of the veracity of testimony it proceeds upon faith. The child abstains from that which it is told is harmful or poisonous; it partakes of that which it is told is helpful. It accepts this testimony without previous experience. Indeed, as it grows older and has increasing experience, it comes more and more to doubt the veracity of human testimony, so when it has the least experience it has the greatest trust in human testimony, and when it has the greatest experience it tends to have a lesser degree of trust in it.
The predication of Hume fails also upon another count in his assumption that a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature and is, therefore, contrary to experience. We have already shown that a miracle is not a violation of the laws of nature. It may be a deviation from such laws as we know, but it is actually in harmony with the nature of the law which regulates the laws of nature, that is, in the application of a superior power or force that which is lesser must give place. So far from this being contrary to the laws of nature it is actually basic to the harmonious functioning of nature.
How can a miracle be contrary to our experience? That it may be outside the range or scope of our experience can readily be granted, but this is vastly different from saying it is opposed to our experience. A dweller in the tropics who has never experienced freezing temperatures or seen a snowfall cannot say that a land of ice is opposed to his experience. It is simply beyond it.
For the miracle of feeding the five thousand to be contrary to one's experience he would have had to be present and witnessed that the fish and loaves were not multiplied and no food was distributed to the hungry multitude. For the miracle of healing the withered hand to be contrary to one's experience he would have had to be present and observe that there was no change wrought in the cripple. One would need to experience the opposite of a miracle for that miracle to be opposite to his experience.
Our experience can never be made the criterion for measuring the validity of any claim which lies outside of, or beyond it. To be a universal measure our experience would need to be absolute and unlimited, otherwise that which lay beyond its limitations could be factual without our being able to determine it. In order to exclude the possibility of miracles performed by God one would need to make himself God.
Perhaps we should turn from the skeptical criticism to the more modern attack of "rationalists," although there is clearly a case of mistaken identity here, for no one could be more irrational in many areas. We live in an age when many have assumed that the record of miracles in the Bible has no relation to historical fact. Their thesis is that Jesus did not claim to perform miraculous acts and the apostolic writers did not write an account of anything deemed to be supernatural. Their idea is that men constructed an image of Christ in their minds and then interpreted what they read to give body to this image. In this fashion they could retain the moral qualities of Jesus and the integrity of the scriptural accounts and place the responsibility for misinterpretation upon those who sought for the wonderful and supernatural.
It is at once apparent that those who thus reason have surrendered the divinity of Jesus and yet want to maintain his right to respect because of his superior human qualities. Only the superstitious would invest him with supernatural power. There is a difference between this approach and that of the more recent "mythical" school of thought and we shall make brief reference to that a little later. The rationalists who sought to hold on to the accounts of Christ have had to face some serious problems. Something had happened and a record had been made of the event. That record indicated a demonstration above and beyond the naturalistic realm. Accordingly, in facing up to the record, a great deal of maneuvering was required to explain away that which was so apparent. Gradually there evolved a rather elaborate scheme of interpretation. In this the scriptures were bent and twisted in a ridiculous fashion.
A good example is the taking of the coin from the mouth of a fish, at the instruction of Jesus, in order to pay the tribute assessed. Peter encountered the tax collectors at Capernaum who enquired about the half-shekel tax. When Peter called this to the attention of Jesus he asserted that he ought to be exempt, but said, "However, not to give offense to them, go to the sea and cast a hook, and take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth you will find a shekel; take that and give it to them for me and for yourself" (Matthew 17:27).
According to the rationalists Jesus was simply telling Peter to return to his old occupation long enough to catch enough fish to pay the tax for the two of them. The Lord was supposed to have smilingly implied that Peter knew that the mouths of fishes contained the answer to all problems related to tax payments and other expenses. He used the expression as we say "straight from the horse's mouth," to indicate the authenticity of our source of information. This is the way in which men of intellectual brilliance seek to evade the power of the Son of God.
In the case of the turning of water into wine we are told that Jesus merely supplied additional wine when he learned from his mother that the celebrants at the wedding had exhausted that provided by the host. But the one who records the event declares that this was the first of his signs, that in performing it he manifested his glory, and as a result his disciples believed on him (John 2:11). Of course this would be absurd if Jesus had just sent the servants out for additional wine. Nor must we forget that it made such an impression that it was used to identify the place later on (John 4:46).
One of the most ingenious artifices is that used to explain the feeding of the multitude. It required no multiplication of bread and fish. It is assumed that those present would not be so foolish as to make no provision at all for the journey and that many had food, but when they halted, instead of bringing forth what they had, those who had provided for themselves selfishly refrained from bringing it out lest they be forced to share with the others. Jesus and his disciples, beholding this attitude, immediately began to share their food with others and the multitude seeing this demonstration of generosity did the same, with the result that there was more than enough for all, and an excess was gathered up. It is said that the real transformation took place in the hearts of the men and women and not on the bread and fish. The subsequent references of Jesus to the event make such rationalization wholly untenable and a little bit ridiculous.
It hardly seems necessary to go through the whole list of miracles. The man at Bethesda was not really a cripple but a psychiatric case who had convinced himself that he could not walk, and gloried in the pity of the multitude. When Jesus confronted him with the question of whether or not he really wanted to be healed he was jerked back into a world of reality and arose and started homeward. Jesus did not walk on the water but on the shore and it just appeared to those in the boat that he was walking on the water. All of these are the concoctions of men who have long ago denied the power of God or his Son and must now devise some means of explaining away the accounts of that power. It is one thing to seek a way of explaining God's revelation, and a wholly different thing to explain God's revelation away.
To one who regards the revelation as a whole such piecemeal and derogatory attempts bring only contempt for the kind of scholarship which must resort to such tactics. It is in no sense of arrogance that we suggest that one who must operate by simple child-like faith will find it far easier to harmonize the scriptures than those who must expound them in such a manner as to disprove the very thing which they were written to prove. "Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples which are not written in this book, but these are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the living God, and that believing you might have life through his name."
In more recent times we have been treated to the term "myth" as applied by some existential writers to the scriptural accounts. Foremost among these is Rudolf Bultmann whose "Kerygma and Myth" was translated into English in 1953. Unfortunately the use of the word "myth" creates a barrier to the proper understanding of what Bultmann and others were talking about and tends to preclude a careful analysis of their theory. Most of us have been conditioned, when we hear the word, to think of the stories of gods and goddesses and their misbehaving. But this is not the sense in which these theologians and philosophers employ the word.
Basically they refer to the distinction which they profess to see in the personal witness to the Christ and the language and cultural style in which that witness is couched. It is alleged that men in our day think of the world in a scientific and technical way and express themselves in a form of exactness produced by our culture. On the other hand, the apostles and their contemporaries lived in a day which preceded our scientific age and they wrote in the thought forms of their own age. It is not alleged that they invented their descriptions or that they were the results of vivid imagination. On the contrary they believed that there was an unseen realm peopled by invisible beings, angels or demons, and that these invaded the world, and they wrote out of belief of such as a reality.
It is argued that man can no longer accept the idea of what is called a three-story universe, with a spatial heaven above and an underworld beneath, and the earth containing man in the middle. For this reason he cannot longer concur in the idea of actual demons or angels. But since these were accepted in the day when the scriptures were written they must be regarded as the honest attempts of men writing to express themselves to the people of their time. These forms are called "mythical" and Bultmann proposed a divesting of the message--the kerygma--from these forms. This was translated into English by the rather cumbersome term "demythologizing."
It will at once be seen that most of the miracles would be purged in such a program. The casting out of demons, the feeding of the multitudes, the temptation in the wilderness, all of these would be eliminated. Of course the question is always posed, "What do these mean to mankind in our day? Suppose they were all given up, what would we lose?" Actually, this is not the real question at all. If we were to start giving up all that has happened in the past which seems to have no direct relevance to our lives we would strip history of a great deal of interest. But who is to determine what is significant in the past and what is not? Suppose that we should discard something as "myth" in one generation which would be found not to be myth by the next generation.
The real question is one of the authenticity and genuineness of the record and that is not to be determined by caprice or disposition. In the final analysis, nothing that has ever happened is without relevance. Everything has its antecedents and consequences and these in turn have theirs. For this reason we reject the thinking which sorts out events and scraps the accounts in the Bible on the basis of what prejudiced individuals want to dispense of or retain. We believe the miracles are vital as proof that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself. We accept them without reservation. We defend them without hesitancy. Our motto in such matters and all others is, "Yea, let God be true, but every man a liar."