That Religious Studies Website

Miracles

• Miracles: An introduction
• Miracles in the Bible (Part 1): Introduction
• Miracles in the Bible (Part 2): Issues and responses

Critiques

• David Hume: 'Of Miracles'

Philosophy of Religion

• Arguments for the Existence of God
• The Problem of Evil and Suffering
• Atheism and Agnosticism
• Immortality and Life after Death
• Miracles
• Religious Pluralism

Recently added to the site

• The Ontological Argument: Introduction and Overview (Video)
• Visit to a Cathedral (Roman Catholic)
• Revision quiz: The Ontological Argument (Anselm of Canterbury)
• Revision quiz: Design arguments for the existence of God (Judeo-Christian): Part 1
• Revision quiz: Martin Luther King Jr.: Key facts
• Worksheet: Martin Luther King Jr.: The Early Years

Miracles in the Bible (Part 2): Issues and responses

Information: This article further considers the notion of miracles from the biblical perspective. Part 1 began with some introductory thoughts on the matter, and a list of some of the miracles we find recorded in the Bible. In this section we consider some further issues to related to miracles in the Bible, as well as briefly looking at how some Christians have responded to and interpreted these events. A version of this article was originally published on the website www.faithnet.org.uk.

The reason for miracles

Having thought about some of the miracles we can find in the Bible, the next question is to consider why they were performed. Although most miracles will be considered signs of God's goodness (benevolence), not all of God's supernatural activity can be said to be 'good'. For instance, in the case of the Exodus and the Passover God was responsible for the death of all the first born in Egypt, because the Pharaoh had previously killed the firstborn sons of the Israelites. Therefore, some miracles are punishments, and therefore signs of God's displeasure.

It is often said that the bad things which happen in the world should be attributed to a malevolent being (i.e. Satan), and that God only does 'good things'. However, this is not actually a view of things supported by the Bible.

Sometimes miracles were done as signs to show that God wanted something to happen, or to save 'the righteous'. Jesus often healed people simply because he had compassion on them. However, when Jesus healed the paralysed man lowered down through the roof in front of him, it was said to be done to show that he had power and authority to forgive sins:

'Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . ." He said to the paralytic, "I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home." He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all.' (Mark 2:9-12)

The point here is that if Jesus can physically heal people, then he can also spiritually heal them too.

Jesus' miracles were also largely intended to validate who he was, and to justify why he had come. In his first sermon Peter tells the crowds, ' Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did amongst you through him, as you yourselves know' (Acts 2:22). We also know that when writing his Gospel, John selected certain miracles Jesus is said to have performed, for the same reason (John 20:30f).

The miracle of Jesus' resurrection

Many Christians believe the most significant miracle recorded in the Bible is the resurrection of Jesus, as this validated his whole ministry. They would also say that this is a unique event in the history of religion, and as such it shows that Christianity is the only true religion.

'If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised either And if Christ has not been raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your faith is useless... And if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is useless and you are still guilty of your sins... But in fact, Christ has been raised from the dead... just as death came into the world through a man, now the resurrection from the dead has begun through another man.' (1 Corinthians 15:12-21)

However, despite what Christian claim about the uniqueness of Jesus' resurrection, he was not the first person to have been raised from the dead. Elijah raised the widow's son from the dead, and Jesus himself also raised people from the dead prior to his death (E.g. Lazarus - John 11:38-44). In response, most Christians would say it is not so much that someone was raised from the dead (i.e. Jesus), but who God raised. The point here is that Jesus' resurrection validated his claim to provide the means by which people may attain eternal life (John 14:6), something most Christians believe no other religious leader/teacher has been able to do (nor could do).

David Hume's famous critique of miracles, challenges (and rejects) the idea that Christians can (and should) consider their faith unique (and true) on the belief that Jesus rose from the dead. Hume's skepticism about this occurring, largely rests on the notion that we cannot rely on the testimonies of this event as being reliable. For more on this see David Hume: 'Of Miracles'.

The Antichrist, false religion and miracles

Although we have been considering miracles as 'acts of God', it should also be noted that the Bible says that some miracles will be performed by the Antichrist to deceive the righteous:

'For false Christ and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect - if that were possible.' (Matthew 24:24)

Some Christians believe that claims of the miraculous occurring in others religions, are intended to lead people away from the truth. They would also say that these miracles are not the work of God, but that of the Devil.

Obviously the same thing could be said by people in other religions about the claims Christians make to see miracles happening, which is why David Hume argued that miracles in different religions cancel each other out, and cannot be used as a basis of faith (see David Hume: 'Of Miracles').

Advertisement

Interpreting the nature of miracles in the Bible

There are many Christians who believe the miraculous events recorded in the Bible literally happened. For this reason they also believe that miraculous events (such as these) could still happen today, if God wanted them to. Christians who interpret the Bible this way are often called Fundamentalist Christians. Fundamentalist Christians believe the whole Bible is God's revealed Word to us (2 Timothy 3:16 - 'All Scripture is God-breathed'). As such, they do not believe it is a human document but a Divine one (i.e. it has been given to us by God, and has not made up by any human). As God's Word, they believe that everything in the Bible is recorded faithfully, and is to be followed absolutely. They also do not allow a non-literal interpretation of Scripture, as this would call into question the authority of the Bible and make our interpretation of it more important than the actual written word.

On the basis of a literal reading of the Bible, Fundamentalist Christians would believe Moses parted the sea through which the Israelites walked, believe Jesus actually fed 5,000 people using only five loaves and two fishes, that he walked on water, that he stilled a storm and that he literally rose in bodily form from the dead.

However, some Christians believe the miracles we read about in the Bible did not literally happen. They believe that the miracles are simply stories, or even exaggerated accounts of 'normal' events. Christians who interpret the Bible in this way are often called Liberal Christians. Liberal Christians believe that the Bible is essentially a human document, which God uses to teach people about Godself. As such, they do not believe it is necessary to believe that everything in the Bible literally happened, in order for people to understand how God wants them to live. They would also say that the most important elements of God's Word is not found in a literal reading (and understanding) of the written word (the Bible), but in the underlying teaching of it.

In Christian theology, Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976) became known for introducing a method of reinterpreting the Bible in this manner. His method came to be known as demythologisation, which was essentially an attempt to get to the heart of the biblical teaching without taking literally the idea of miracles etc. Bultmann's main reason for doing this, was that he felt we now lived in times when people were less willing to take seriously the idea of someone walking on water or even rising from the dead. Also, to insist people should literally believe these things happened may prevent them from becoming Christians. So by stripping away the supernatural elements, and re-interpreting the literal meaning of miracles, Bultmann tried to give people a more credible version of the Christian faith to believe in.

For example, a liberal interpretation of the story of the feeding of the five thousand may see this more as a lesson about sharing. They would say that Jesus did not actually miraculously multiply the small amount of food he was given, but that there might have been a situation where there was a large crowd around him, that people were hungry, that Jesus asked his followers to find some food for them all, that the small boy may have offered all that he had, and that his example was acknowledged by Jesus and caused others in the crowd to share what they had with the people there. Liberals would say that a literal reading of this story would teach us nothing, as we could not literally do what Jesus did (i.e. miraculously multiply a small amount of food to feed many thousands of people). Instead, a 'liberal interpretation' would be that the 'miracle' occurred when the boy offered up all had to Jesus, and as such we should be prepared to offer and share what we have, so that God might bless others through this.

Liberal Christians place a lot of emphasis on a more 'natural' interpretation of the events recorded in the Bible. Many would argue that as the Bible was written in a pre-scientific era, that it contains accounts of things which we would now explain through science, psychology and medicine.

Concluding thoughts

There are issues on either side of the debate, concerning an interpretation of the record of the miracles in the Bible. On the one hand the Fundamentalist's challenge is that if one rejects a literal reading of some of the biblical material, then why not reject everything? If we do not literally believe that Moses parted the Red Sea, then why believe that he was given the Ten Commandments? If Jesus did not literally do the miracles as recorded in the Bible, then why believe anything people recorded about him saying? If we reject one part of the Bible as not being liberally true, then on what basis should we accept other parts as being true? On the other hand, there is the challenge that if one does not interpret and apply the meaning of the Bible for each generation, then its teaching will become irrelevant and obsolete, and that an important part of doing this is to move away from the belief that the miracles literally happened, when it is no longer deemed credible by most people to believe in them.

Clearly some unusual things happened in the lives of the people recorded in the Bible, otherwise why would anything have been written down. However, our understanding and interpretation of the miracles in the Bible will largely depend on how much credence we give to the accounts and the reliability of the witnesses, and our own religious presuppositions and beliefs.

Back to top