THE MIRACLES OF CHRIST VS. MODERN MIRACLES

by

Wayne Jackson

 

The Gospel accounts record more than three dozen specific miracles

which Jesus of Nazareth performed during His ministry. In addition,

there are numerous general references to a great number of other signs

which Christ did while He was on Earth (see John 20:30,31, et al.).

The miracles of Jesus are crucial to the validity of Christianity.

C.S. Lewis has well noted: "All the essentials of Hinduism would, I

think, remain unimpaired if you subtracted the [alleged] miraculous,

and the same is almost true of Muhammadanism, but you cannot do that

with Christianity. It is precisely the story of a great Miracle. A

naturalistic Christianity leaves out all that is specifically

Christian" (1947, p 83).

The Lord performed a great variety of wonders. He showed His power

over nature, e.g., calming a storm (Matthew 8:23-27). He was able to

supernaturally manipulate material objects. For instance, He

transformed water into wine (John 2:1-11) and multiplied loaves and

fish (John 6:1-14). Christ exhibited His authority over physical

disease. He healed a man born blind---a feat which had never been

observed in the entire history of the world (John 9:1-7; 32). He even

raised the dead. Lazarus had been a corpse four days when Jesus bade

him come forth from his tomb (John 11:39-44).

But were the miracles of Christ authentic? Infidelity begins with

the `a priori' (i.e., without examination or analysis) assumption that

the "supernatural" does not exist, therefore, Jesus did not perform

true miracles. But this is not an honest approach to the issue. The

question is: what does the evidence of history indicate? Are there

sufficient historical data to warrant the reasonable deduction that

Christ did effect certain "signs" which cannot be explained upon any

natural basis? This issue really comes down to two significant points.

First, what does the ancient documentation indicate about the nature of

the Lord's miracles? Second, is the historical record credible?

CHARACTERISTICS OF JESUS' MIRACLES

There are a number of tell-tale traits characteristic of the

miracles of Christ which, if we accept the descriptions of them

presented in the New Testament, give them an aura of credibility.

First, the wonders which Jesus did were subject to sense perception.

The water which the Lord changed into wine could be tasted (John 2:9).

Thomas could feel the wounds in the hands and side of the resurrected

Lord (John 20:27). The restored ear (amputated by Peter) of the high

priest's servant could be seen (Luke 22:51). The signs of Jesus'

ministry were in the form of objective demonstrations, not subjective

speculations!

Second, the miracles of Christ were performed in the presence of a

wide variety of witnesses. There were male and female, educated and

uneducated, friends and foes, etc. The wonders were done in the

synagogues, in the public streets, during the great festivals, etc.

When the Lord multiplied the loaves and fish, possibly some ten

thousand people witnessed the event (see John 6:10). Repeatedly, the

miracles were said to be done in the presence of great crowds (Matthew

4:23ff; Mark 3:7ff; John 5:8ff).

Third, the signs of Christ were independent of any secondary

causes. By this we mean that there is no possible way to explain these

phenomena upon any naturalistic basis. Neither medical treatment, nor

mental suggestion, is sufficient to explain how a man congenitally

blind can have his sight restored (John 9:1-7), or how a man, dead four

days, can come out of his grave (John 11:39).

Fourth, the miracles of Christ produced instantaneous results and

their effect was complete. When the Lord healed Peter's mother-in-law,

she rose up and "immediately" served others (Luke 4:39). A certain

woman, who had suffered from hemorrhaging for twelve years, was healed

by Christ and "immediately her bleeding stopped" (Mark 5:29). Though

Lazarus had been "sick" (Greek---`astheneo', "weak, feeble") prior to

his death (John 11:1-6), when Christ raised him from the dead, he was

able to come forth from the tomb of his own strength, even though he

was bound hand and foot with grave clothes (11:44). He came back, not

merely to life, but to vigorous life.

Fifth, there is not the slightest bit of evidence that Christ ever

failed in attempting to work a miracle. His enemies never once accused

Him of such. The New Testament makes it plain; His success rate was

always one-hundred per cent. "He cast out spirits with a word, and

healed all who were sick" (Matthew 8:16; cf. 12:15). Some claim that

Mark 8:22ff is an example of where Christ was unable to effect an

instantaneous and complete cure of a blind man. Such, however, is not

the case. This might be called a two-stage miracle. J.W. McGarvey

comments:

Jesus adopted this method of cure to give variety to the

manifestations of his power by showing that he could heal

in part and by progressive steps, as well as by his more

usual method of effecting a perfect cure at one word. This

cure was not less miraculous than others, but rather more

so; for it was really the working of two miracles, each

effecting instantaneously all that was intended by it (1875,

p 314).

Sixth, the miracles of Christ were always characterized by a

stately dignity; they never smacked of the bizarre. Moreover, they

uniformly evinced a worthy motive. They were never performed to satisfy

the personal needs of the Lord; rather, they were always in the

ultimate interest of others. Contrast this, for example, with the

ancient Catholic legend regarding St. Eligius. Eligius was said on one

occasion to be shoeing a horse that would not stand still. So he took

off the leg, shod the foot, and restored the limb, the horse being none

the worse for the procedure. Eligius thus became the "patron saint" of

blacksmiths!

Seventh, the signs of Jesus were not denied by His contemporaries,

nor by others for many years beyond the first century. For example, the

Pharisees---pronounced enemies of Christ---conceded that He was casting

out demons; they rationalized, however, and suggested that these deeds

were done by the power of the prince of demons (Matthew 12:24). That

argument was demolished, though, when the Lord pointed out that were

such the case, Satan would be divided against himself! Note the

frustrated testimony of the chief priests and Pharisees in John 11:47:

"What do we? for this man doeth many signs." Additionally, as Thomas

Horne observed, while the facts were too recent to be disputed, the

post-apostolic enemies of Christianity, e.g., Celsus, Porphyry,

Hierocles, Julian, and others, admitted that Christ did some

inexplicable wonders. They merely characterized them as magic and, of

course, denied the divine commission of Him who performed them.

However, "to whatever cause they ascribed them, their admission of the

reality of these miracles is an involuntary confession that there was

something preternatural in them" (1841, p 103).

Finally, we may note that not one time do we have the record of a

disciple of Jesus Christ defecting and then doing an expos of the

"fakery" involved in the Savior's miracles. Judas, who betrayed the

Lord, had every opportunity to do this. He was in the inner circle of

disciples, even as treasurer of the apostolic band (John 12:6). Surely,

over a span of three and one-half years, if Christ had been

perpetrating a hoax, Judas would have known it. And he would have

provided such information to the Jewish authorities. But he never did.

In fact, as is well-known, he brought back the pieces of silver and

confessed: "I have sinned in that I betrayed innocent blood" (Matthew

27:4). Is this the testimony of a person, on the verge of suicide,

concerning one known to be a charlatan? Hardly.

IS THE HISTORICAL RECORD RELIABLE?

Since we were not present at the dawn of the first century to

actually see the miracles of Jesus, we obviously are dependent upon

historical records for our faith in their validity. Can we trust the

testimony of those who claimed to have seen the miracles of Christ?

Let us consider the credibility of the four writers of the Gospel

accounts. Two of these, Matthew and John, were apostles of Christ who

were with Him on virtually a daily basis for three and one-half years.

They were eyewitnesses to the deeds of the Lord. Mark, who wrote as a

proteg of Peter (see the comment of Irenaeus [ca. A.D. 140-203],

`Against Heresies' III, i, 1), likely records the testimony of that

eminent apostle, and perhaps writes from some firsthand knowledge as

well. Finally, Luke, admittedly a first-rate historian, had "traced the

course of all things accurately from the first" (Luke 1:3). Aside from

the presumptions of skeptical bias, there is no reason to question

these records.

These men firmly and harmoniously declared that Jesus of Nazareth

performed many miracles, thus authenticating His claim of being the Son

of God (see John 20:30-31). If their narratives are to be rejected,

upon what ground will such be done? There are but a few possibilities.

Were these sincere and intelligent men who were simply ignorant of the

actual facts? Were they deluded simpletons incapable of judging the

events as they observed them? Or were they dishonest hucksters desirous

of perpetrating a deception? Actually, none of these theories

harmonizes with the evidence---and evidence is the only thing that

matters. What are the facts?

(1)One cannot argue that they were uninformed of the first-century

circumstances. They were there. Hence, they were in a much better

position to assess the situation than modern infidel critics---two

millennia removed from the scene.(2)There is no justification for

suggesting that they were rattle-brained enthusiasts who were

undependable as historians. In recording these phenomenal events which

they personally witnessed, they wrote with a calmness and a

dispassionate demeanor that utterly defies explanation.(3)Their

documents are precise in countless historical details. When they are

demonstrated to be accurate in such a variety of ways, why should it be

assumed that they are incorrect in their narratives concerning the

signs of Jesus?(4)The fact that the Gospel writers are so harmonious in

their testimonies regarding the Lord's miracles argues for the accuracy

of their accounts. [Note: Though the Gospel narratives sometimes

supplement one another, they never contradict. The fact is, the

differences reflected by the various authors evidence a lack of

collusion.](5)Their writings indicate a scrupulous honesty that makes

the productions extremely credible. For example, Matthew, with

incriminating candor, declares that when the Lord was arrested "all the

disciples [that includes this disciple] left him, and fled" (Matthew

26:56).(6)The integrity of the Gospel writers is evidenced by the fact

that they were willing to suffer the consequences of their testimony.

They had nothing to gain and much to lose (from the physical/material

vantage point) by insisting that Jesus performed genuine miracles. They

suffered the hatred of their contemporaries. They were subjected to

torture and even death for their testimony concerning those miracles

which they personally witnessed (not merely for emotionally-charged

beliefs), yet they never recanted. This level of dedication passes the

very highest test of authenticity.

When all of the facts are in, and when they are analyzed in the

light of honest objectivity, the conclusion is clear. Jesus did

actually perform miracles and thus He was who He claimed to be---the

Messiah, the Son of God.

MODERN "MIRACLES"

But how does one explain the alleged "miracles" of this age? In the

first place, we are not really obligated to defend, as divine, an event

simply because it may have certain elements that are difficult to

explain. There are many illusions that magicians perform which I cannot

explain; they do have natural explanations though. They are not

miracles. That aside, there are several possible bases for so-called

modern miracles. As an example, let us focus upon the acts of supposed

"faith healings."

(1)Some instances of "faith healing" are pure fakery. Consider the

case of Peter Popoff, miracle-working cleric of Upland, California.

Popoff, who claimed the supernatural ability to give revealed

information about people in his audiences (in conjunction with

"healing" them) was receiving such information through a tiny hearing

aid, messages being transmitted by his wife from backstage. Prominent

magician, James Randi, exposed the entire affair on nationwide T.V.

(1987, pp 139-181). Randi also demonstrated that Popoff was providing

rented wheelchairs for people who could actually walk, then, at his

services, he was pronouncing them "healed."

(2)Some "miracles cures" are claimed by people who honestly believe

that God has healed them. The fact is, however, they had nothing really

organically wrong with them. Their ailment was psychosomatic. This

means that though some bodily feature was actually affected, the real

root of the problem was mental or emotional, hence, by suggestion a

cure might be effected. It has been estimated that some 55% (or more)

of the patients applying for medical treatment in the United States

suffer from psychosomatic illnesses. In fact, Dr. William S. Sadler has

written: "It is generally believed by experienced physicians that at

least two thirds of the ordinary cases of sickness which doctors are

called upon to treat would, if left entirely alone, recover without the

aid of the doctor or his medicine" (1929, p 15). Taking advantage of

this type of sickness, the faith-healer, in an atmosphere of hysteria

and feverish emotionalism, produces some phenomenal "cures." But there

is absolutely nothing miraculous about such cases. A physician in

Toronto, Canada, investigated thirty cases in which Oral Roberts

claimed a miraculous healing was effected; he "found not one case that

could not be attributed to psychological shock or hysteria" (Randi,

1987, p 288). Dr. Sadler affirmed that after twenty-five years of

sympathetic research into faith-healing, he had not observed a single

case of an organic disease being healed.

It is commonly known that an African witch-doctor can literally

command a believer in voodooism to die, and within the prescribed time,

the victim will expire. This evidences the powerful command of the mind

over the body. Surely no one will claim, though, that the witch-doctor

has "the Spirit of God."

(3)Another explanation for some so-called faith cures is a

phenomenon known as spontaneous remission. Spontaneous remission is an

unexpected withdrawal of disease symptoms and an inexplicable

disappearance of the ailment. It occurs in about one out of every

80,000 cancer patients. Joseph Mayerle of Bremerton, Washington, had

exploratory surgery; it was discovered that he was consumed with

cancer. His physicians gave him only a few months to live. Months sped

by and his disease utterly vanished. There was nothing miraculous

about it. According to newspaper accounts, Mr. Mayerle, a bartender,

made no claim to faith, prayer, or a miracle-cure. Would not some

faith-healer have delighted in taking credit for that case?

(4)It must be admitted that since physicians are but human, they

can and do make mistakes, and sometimes wrongly diagnose a case. Some

of these situations are seized upon by modern "miracle-workers" and a

supernatural aura is attributed to them.

CONCLUSION

There is one final point of this discussion that needs to be

pressed with great vigor. There is no alleged "miracle" being performed

today by Pentecostals, or those of similar "Christian" persuasion, that

cannot be duplicated by various other cults and "non-Christian" sects.

Those who practice Christian Science, Mormonism, Transcendental

Meditation, Yoga, Psychic Healing, Scientology, New Age Crystal

Healing, etc., claim the same type of "signs" as the Pentecostals. In

fact, more than twenty million Americans annually report mystic

experiences (including healing) in their lives (Harris, 1989, p 64).

Now, since the Scriptures clearly teach that the purpose of

miracles, as evidenced in biblical days, was to confirm the message

proclaimed, hence, to validate the Christian System, do the multiple

alleged examples of miracle-workings indicate that the Lord has

authenticated all of these contradictory systems? Think of the

implication of that in light of Paul's affirmation that God is not the

Author of confusion (I Corinthians 14:33).

There is abundant evidence that there were genuine miracles

performed by Jesus Christ and His divinely appointed followers of the

first century; but there is no proof whatever that such wonders are

being duplicated today.

REFERENCES

Harris, T. George (1989), "Mysticism Goes Mainstream" `Psychology

Today', 23[1/].

Horne, T.H. (1841), `Introduction to the Holy Scriptures'

(Philadelphia, PA: J. Whetham & Son).

Lewis, C.S. (1947), `Miracles' (New York: Macmillan and Co.).

McGarvey, J.W. (1875), `Commentary on Matthew and Mark' (Delight AR:

Gospel Light Publishing Co.).

Randi, James (1987), `The Faith Healers' (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus).

Sadler, William S. (1929), `The Truth About Mind Cure '(London: George

Allen & Unwin).

 

Apologetics Press

230 Landmark Drive

Montgomery, AL 36117-2752

---

Index of Preacher's Help and Notes

These documents are free from BelieversCafe.com, the complete christian resource site with more than 5000 webpages.