The Year of Public Favor, Part 3: The Credentials of the Messiah, or the Miracles of Jesus

By David J. MacLeod [1]

Dave MacLeod is Chairman of the Division of Biblical Studies at Emmaus Bible College and Associate Editor of The Emmaus Journal.

Part I: An Exposition of Matthew 11:2-6

Introduction

People are not made to live without hope. It’s like oxygen to them. “Take oxygen away and death comes by suffocation; take hope away and death comes by despair.” [2] “Christianity,” said Nelson Bell, “is the religion of hope. Christ is the door of hope.” [3] The biblical writers agree. The apostle Paul goes so far as to say that the non-Christian lives without hope. Those without Christ are “without hope in the world” (Eph. 2:12). People in the ancient world used the word hope much the way people do today. [4] By hope, they meant their own projections for the future. The content of that hope depended on a person’s evaluation of his/her own possibilities. In other words, it meant, “wish.” It was wishful thinking, as when a girl asks her friend, “Are you going to marry Johnny?” and her friend replies, “I hope so.” This kind of hope is uncertain and easily deceived. In the Bible, however, hope means “confident expectation.” [5] It is not an empty consoling dream of my own imagination; rather, it is fixed on the promises of God about the future.

There is, however, a dark side to faith and hope, and it is doubt. Doubt rises in the strongest of believers, because the believer still has indwelling sin, what Scripture calls “the flesh” (Rom. 7:18, 25). And the flesh, says William Kelly, “is always an unbelieving nature. [It] never has confidence in God.” [6] While my own nature is the root of doubt, the external object of doubt is God. “God does not always act as we expect.” [7]

Charles Swindoll says this kind of doubt comes at the believer from three angles. [8] First, doubt comes when God permits what we think he should never permit. As Rabbi Harold Kushner put it, “Why do bad things happen to good people?” [9] When a recently married daughter is brutally murdered, or a large truck crushes a little son, we ask, “Why did God permit that?” Of course the skeptic asks the question, but it is more disquieting when it rises in the heart of a believer. Second, doubt comes when things we believe should happen never do. Two parents send their son off to war with a prayer that God will bring him safely home, but God says, “No.” A police officer is wantonly shot by thugs in an onion field outside Bakersfield, California, and not only do the murderers escape the gas chamber, but one is actually set free. Joni Eareckson, paralyzed in a diving accident in the Chesapeake Bay, trusts confidently that the paralysis will go away — only to be told that she would never regain the use of her hands or feet. We expect God to say, “Yes,” but he says, “No.” Finally, there is a third situation where doubts arise. Doubts sometimes grow when things that we believe should happen now, happen much, much later. This is for many believers the hardest of the three. We ask, and God says, “Wait, wait, wait.”

These “pressure points” of doubt, as Swindoll calls them, provide a perfect introduction to a crisis of doubt in the life of John the Baptist described in Matthew 11:2–6. The “big idea” of the passage is this: “God does not always act as we expect, [yet] many answers to our questions are already in the Bible.” [10] As we consider this important spiritual lesson, we shall also consider what this and a number of other texts say about the miracles of our Lord.

The Miracles and Messiah’s Ministry

John’s Question to Jesus: “Are You the Messiah of Old Testament Prophecy?”

The Message and Works of Jesus

Jesus was going throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness among the people (Matt. 4:23).

Matthew reports that the ministry of Jesus was threefold. First, he was proclaiming the nearness of the long awaited kingdom of heaven. Details are given in chapters 4 and 10. Second, he was teaching in the synagogues and in the countryside. Matthew illustrates this aspect of his ministry by recording the Sermon on the Mount in chapters 5–7. Third, he was performing acts of miraculous healing. Matthew shows this by giving accounts of ten miracles in chapters 8–9. News spread quickly, and large crowds from Galilee were following him (Matt. 4:24–25; 8:1).

The Imprisonment and Doubts of John

For when Herod had John arrested, he bound him and put him in prison because of Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip. For John had been saying to him, “It is not lawful for you to have her” (Matt. 14:3–4). 

Now when John, while imprisoned, heard of the works of Christ, he sent word by his disciples and said to Him, “Are You the Expected One, or shall we look for someone else?” (Matt. 11:2–3).

News of the “works of Jesus” (Matt. 11:2) reached John the Baptist in prison. Apparently his followers kept him abreast of events on the outside world. [11]

Before Jesus began his public ministry, John the Baptist began his — and his message was filled with hope. [12] He had sounded the very same note as Jesus: “Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 3:2).

John and Jesus did not seek to define what they meant by the term kingdom, so it should be understood in light of OT teaching. [13] The great writing prophets looked on in hope to the new age of the kingdom in which human wickedness would be straightened out, the foolish would be made wise, and the wise, humble. They dreamed of a time when the Lord himself would be present to teach man his ways, when he would sort out the differences between peoples, and warfare between nations would end (Isa. 2:2–4). They spoke of a time when a great anointed Son of David would judge and rule the earth (Isa. 11:1–9; 32:1–2; Dan. 7:13–14). He would treat all classes of people fairly, and would immediately crush all wickedness. The wrongfully imprisoned would be released (Isa. 61:1). They prophesied that the desert places would flower as new streams of water appeared, the blind would see, the deaf would hear, and the lame would leap for joy (Isa. 35). People would go to sleep without weapons in their laps (Isa. 32:14–20). They would work in peace and honesty. A wolf would lie down with the lamb (Isa. 11), and all nature would be fruitful, benign, and filled with wonder. All nature and all mankind would look to God, lean on God, and delight in God (Isa. 42:1–12; 60; 65:17–25; Joel 2:24–29). Finally, Israel would be rescued from her enemies, who would suffer under divine judgment (Isa. 13; Ps. 46:9; Hos. 2:18). [14]

That kingdom, said John, was “at hand” (ἤγγικεν, ēngiken). This did not mean that it had actually arrived.15 Rather, it had drawn near.16 It was on the verge of being realized, but its actual arrival had not yet occurred. Because it was near, said John, the people were to prepare for it by repenting of their sins. Sometime later, when he baptized Jesus, John learned by divine revelation that Jesus was the anointed Son of God (John 1:33–34). [17]

But now John was in trouble. Courageous man that he was, he had publicly rebuked Herod Antipas, ruler of Galilee, for his marital affairs. On his way to Rome, Herod had stayed with his brother Philip, and while there he had seduced Philip’s wife, Herodias. She promised to leave her husband when Antipas returned from Rome. This she did. He divorced his wife as well, and they married. [18]

Unlike many craven clergymen during the administration of President Bill Clinton, John the Baptist did not shrink from rebuking the sexual immorality of those in high places. John spoke out about Herod Antipas, and the tetrarch put him in prison (Matt. 14:3–4). He was imprisoned, says Josephus, in the fortress of Machaerus, on the eastern shore of the Dead Sea. [19]

John was not only in trouble with the political authorities; he was going through a spiritual crisis. He was in doubt as to whether Jesus was the Messiah after all; in fact, he was apparently having questions about the very nature of that messiahship. [20]

We should note, incidentally, that Matthew, writing about this incident years later, had no doubts about who Jesus was. In verse two he calls him “the Christ” (ὁ Χριστός, ho Christos), i.e., the Messiah or “Anointed One.” At this stage in the earthly ministry of Jesus, people were not commonly ascribing this title to him. Matthew, however, knew when he wrote what John suspected and hoped for (and had doubts about) in prison. He uses the title here “to remind his readers who it was that John the Baptist was doubting.” [21]

John sent his disciples — Luke (7:19) says there were two of them — to ask Jesus a question: “Are you the Expected One, or do we look for someone else?” “The Expected One,” lit. “the Coming One,” (ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ho erchomenos) was a messianic title in NT days (cf. Matt. 3:11; 21:9; 23:39; John 6:14; 11:27; Heb. 10:37). [22] The pronoun “you” (σύ, su) is thrown forward in the Greek text for emphasis: “Are you the Messiah? Or shall we look for someone else?” John asked. The word translated, “someone else,” suggests another of a different kind. “Shall we look for a different kind of Messiah?” [23]

Why was John doubting? In light of earlier incidents in his life, it is surprising. [24] John was Jesus’ cousin and had heard, no doubt, the stories of the unusual events surrounding both their births (Luke 1–2). He evidently sensed Jesus’ superiority to himself, because when Jesus came for baptism John initially said that he needed to be baptized by Jesus, and not the other way around (Matt. 3:14). Later John explained that it was at the baptism that he came to know that Jesus was the Son of God. Subsequently he pointed him out as “the Lamb of God” (John 1:30–36). It is clear that before his imprisonment, John saw Jesus in the glow of Israel’s messianic hope.

John’s doubts are not so difficult to understand psychologically when we reflect on our own sinful natures. [25] His doubts were probably those suggested by students of Matthew over the years: For example, John could look back and admit that he had always found Jesus a bit baffling. He could remember that he had wondered at the very beginning why, if he were the Messiah, he should be baptized (Matt. 3:14; cf. Mark 1:4–5). In addition, the first few disciples that he called were not the kind who would set the world on fire by destroying evil. They were not men of influence and eloquence — they were fishermen. And what of the great deeds prophesied about the Messiah? In his Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7), Jesus had not set forth an electrifying manifesto of revolution. Instead, he warned against acts of hatred and vengeance. He called his followers to obedience, devotion to God, sexual purity, temperamental patience, and spiritual gentleness (5:17–48) — hardly the mighty deeds of Messiah the Prince.

Also, it is true that John heard reports of miracles, but not one of them was done in Jerusalem, the strategic city, as anyone would see. Wouldn’t careful missions strategy dictate that capital cities and strategic people groups be targeted? Instead, he did his healings in Galilee, the “boondocks” of the day. Furthermore, he was not attacking the reigning political and economic power structures of the day. Those indoctrinated in the techniques of radical social action of the twentieth century could have told Jesus that he needed to get at the “root problems.” Why was he healing old ladies and lepers? (Matt. 8:2–3, 14–15). Why didn’t he go after the economic injustices in the major cities?

And why was Jesus out in the countryside healing insignificant sick people while the Pharisees and Sadducees still controlled the whole rotten religio-ideological system? John had said Messiah was coming with an ax and would cut the whole corrupt system down — and throw it in the fire. And what of the Romans? Weren’t the enemies of Israel supposed to be driven out and destroyed? Judgment was not being meted out, and John was having second thoughts. [26]

“And what about me?” John may have thought. Does not the OT teach — did not Jesus teach in the synagogue — that Messiah would “proclaim liberty to captives and freedom to prisoners” (Isa. 61:1; cf. Luke 4:18)? “If Jesus is the Messiah,” John was apparently thinking, “why am I in this jail?” “This man,” he would have told us, “is simply not acting the way I expected God’s Messiah to act.” [27]

In his remarkable book, Man’s Search for Meaning, Viktor Frankl, successor of Sigmund Freud, argues that the loss of hope and courage can have a deadly effect on man. In the Nazi concentration camps, Frankl watched his Jewish friends die one after the other, not only in the gas chamber, but also from the lack of hope. After observing this horrible scene, Frankl concluded that when a person no longer possesses a motive for living, no future to look forward to, he curls up in a corner and dies. [28]

William Barclay tells of a little cell in Carlisle Castle in NW England. Long ago they put a border chieftain from Scotland in that cell and left him there for years. In the cell there was one small window which was “placed too high for a man to look out of when he is standing on the floor. On the ledge of the window there are two depressions worn away in the stone. They are the marks of the hands of that border chieftain, the places where, day after day, he lifted himself up by his hands to look out on the green dales across which he would never ride again.” [29] The cell of John the Baptist played a part, just as circumstances often do, in his growing despair.

Finally, John wondered, where is the kingdom? Did I not preach that the kingdom was “at hand?” Does Jesus not preach the same thing? Why hasn’t the old age ended, the wicked been judged, and the throne of David been established?

Excursus: The Questions and Doubts of John in Today’s World

John’s difficulty with Jesus is shared by many today. Three groups in particular are troubled by Jesus’ kind of messiahship and are asking, “Should we expect a different kind of Coming One?” [30] The first group is Jewry. Israel today has John’s problem — Jesus does not seem “sufficiently messianic.”

The second group is modern “Liberation Theology.” For many progressive theologians in the third world, Catholic and Protestant, “Jesus does not make a good guerrilla.” For twelve years Dr. Dale Bruner, evangelical theologian and Bible teacher, served as a Presbyterian missionary in the Philippines. He found Liberation theologians who shared John the Baptist’s frustrations with Jesus. “Jesus brought us eternal salvation,” they taught the people, “but he did not intend to give us a program for national liberation.” So, they argue, we should find our eternal liberation in Christ, but our social and economic liberation from Marx, Lenin, and Mao-Tse-tung. The problem Dr. Bruner found is that one cannot serve two Messiahs. One will eclipse the other, and in the Philippines the one eclipsed was Jesus. No, Bruner writes, “Jesus Christ is either the fully competent, Absolute Liberator, or he is nothing at all.”

The third group is modern “socially concerned” evangelicals. They, like John, do not like the notion that the kingdom has not come yet. So they impose upon the NT the unbiblical notion that the kingdom has come. [31] They speak of the present reality of the kingdom of God. In their writings they seem embarrassed by the unimpressive ministries and slowness of the church. They speak condescendingly of the historic mission of the church to evangelize the lost and care for the needy. Instead, they speak delusionally of the need to empower Christians to participate in the present “reign of Christ in the world.” [32] Simple evangelism is not enough. The church, they say, needs to follow the mandate to overcome injustice and oppression through Christian political action. They promote a “triumphalist vision of what Jesus Christ is doing in the world today.” They seem to be in total denial as to the approaching end of the age. Such views raise questions very much like John the Baptist’s, and in the end they will lead the questioners to deny the gospel. [33]

Jesus’ Answer to John: “I Perform the Messianic Miracles of Old Testament Prophecy”

He Displayed the Credentials of the Messiah, verses 4-5

What Jesus Was Doing and Saying

Jesus answered and said to them, “Go and report to John what you hear and see: the blind receive sight and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.”

The Lord Jesus heard John’s question, and then he sent back an answer. The answer is important both for what it says and for what it does not say. Luke’s Gospel (7:21) suggests that John’s disciples had ample time to observe Jesus’ ministry. Not only would they hear him and watch him perform miracles, but they could also compile a report of what other had heard and seen. The order of Jesus’ words is significant: “what you hear and see.” It is a nice summary of Matthew chapters 5–10. In chapters 5–7 there is teaching that was “heard,” and in chapters 8–10 there is a record of ten of his miracles.

In his answer to John, Jesus mentions six items. John would listen carefully to his disciples’ report, and in it he would hear phrases from Isaiah that referred to the promised messianic age. The miracles Jesus lists are signs of the messianic kingdom. [34] In a quote from Isaiah 29:18 he says, “the blind receive sight” (cf. Isa. 35:5; 42:18; Matt. 9:27–31). There is no record in the OT of any blind person being cured (cf. John 9:32). No disciple of Jesus would heal the blind; yet blindness is the illness Jesus most frequently healed. “Jesus stood out as a healer of the blind.” [35] “The lame walk” (Isa. 35:6 [“the lame will leap like a deer”]; Matt. 9:1–8). “The lepers are cleansed” (Matt. 8:1–4). There is no mention of lepers being cleansed in the messianic age in Isaiah, and Jesus may have been suggesting to John that his miracles went beyond what the OT anticipated. [36] “The deaf hear” (Isa. 29:18; 35:5; cf. Matt. 9:32–34). “The dead are raised up” (Isa. 26:19; cf. Matt. 9:18–26). “The poor have the gospel preached to them,” [37] i.e., the “good news” of the Kingdom was being proclaimed (Isa. 61:1; cf. Matt. 9:35). [38]

This list of six items is arranged, in Matthean fashion, in pairs in which the more powerful miracle of each pair is listed first. [39] It should also be noted that preaching of good news to the poor is paired with the raising of the dead. This has to be deliberate. What is humanly speaking the least impressive thing (preaching to the poor) is paired with what is most impressive. Furthermore, it is placed last in the list in a kind of climactic position. It is as if Jesus was saying that ministering to the poor, the downtrodden, the grief-stricken, the little people — this was really his most important work. [40] It was a new thing, unknown in Judaism, for the poor, who were commonly despised and neglected as worthless, to be invited into the kingdom. [41]

In his teaching and miracles (“what you hear and see”) Jesus provided John with ample evidence that he had the credentials of Messiah.

What Jesus Was Not Doing and Saying

As John listened he would notice something that Jesus had omitted. In listing his miracles, Jesus had alluded to four passages in Isaiah (26:19; 29:18–19; 35:5–6; 61:1). Each of those passages in the immediate context refers to God’s judgment. In Isaiah 35:4, just before the promise to the blind, the Lord says, “Behold, your God will come with vengeance.” In Isaiah 61:2, immediately following the promise of release to the captives, the prophets speaks of “the day of vengeance of our God” (Isa. 26:11; 29:20). Jesus, however, made no mention of that in his answer to John. The judgments of the end time and the actual establishment of the kingdom upon the earth have been delayed.

John was a “victim of an incomplete view of the truth. He had not yet learned to distinguish the two aspects of the work of Christ, represented by His two advents.” [42] As John and later followers of Christ read further in Isaiah, they would learn that the King could only come to David’s throne through suffering. The atoning death of Christ is a prerequisite to reigning. “The King comes to His throne through the blood of His cross. The proper sequence is: redemption by blood, then redemption by power; the cross precedes the crown.” [43]

Just as John needed to understand these things, so do we. Those of us who preach the messianic kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ sometimes give the impression to our theological opponents that at his first coming he offered a kingdom apart from the cross. [44] This was, of course, impossible.

On the other hand, some amillennial scholars so emphasize the necessity of the cross as the purpose of our Lord’s first coming that they ignore the evidence in the Gospels of the offer of an earthly, messianic kingdom. “The truth,” said Johnson, “is not that He offered a Kingdom without a cross, or a cross without an earthly Kingdom, but a Kingdom through a cross (Luke 24:25–27; 1 Pet. 1:10–12).” [45]

He Offered an Encouraging Warning to the Doubter, verse 6

“And blessed is he who does not take offense at Me.”

Jesus’ closing words to John are not a sharp rebuke, nor are they harsh shaming words. He did not say, “Blessed is the person who never doubts that I am the Messiah.” Such words would have crushed John in his despondent state. Rather, the words were more encouraging: “God bless you John, if you do not throw the whole thing over because I am different.” [46] It is a gentle admonition to perseverance in the faith — “Keep on believing, John.”

The word “blessed” (μακάριος, makarios) is sometimes understood to refer to a deep inner joy or happiness. [47] The emphasis, however, is more on divine approval than on human happiness. [48] The phrase “does not take offence” (μὴ σκανδαλισθῇ, mē skandalisthē) is from the verb from which we get our English word “scandalized.” It means literally, “to cause to stumble” or, in the passive, “to be made to stumble.” [49] God’s ways, and the way that Jesus carried out his messianic task, are sometimes hard to accept, and people “stumble” over them or take offence at them. [50]

The admonition of Jesus suggests two things: First, some will be offended. As Bengel noted, that many would be offended at him was in itself a sign of the Messiah. [51] In fact, the offence would lead to his death, something that Jesus’ early followers did not foresee, but which had been predicted by Isaiah (52:14; 53:3). Some who were offended were believers, and their falling away was a temporary scattering (Matt. 26:31, 33). [52] Others who took offence were unbelievers, and their offence is manifested in their failure to come to faith (Matt. 13:57–58). [53]

Second, these parting words to John contain an admission that not everything is going to work out the way that he expected. John did not hear the word of the Lord incorrectly when he was told at Jesus’ baptism that he was the Son of God. But his view of the kingdom needed to be corrected. John must be prepared to accept the fact that the judgment of the wicked is not going to take place immediately, nor is the earthly kingdom to be established right away. Instead there is going to be an extended period of proclaiming God’s word to the needy. Instead of God’s vengeance, there will be a time of tender mercy for needy sinners — not only those of Israel, but of the Gentile world as well. And blessed is the man who is not offended because Messiah has work to do that he, John, had not expected. [54]

Matthew’s Message to Us: Lessons for His Readers

The Doctrinal Lessons

1. The messianic miracles were signs that Jesus was, in fact, the long awaited Messiah. John and his disciples did not need to wait for someone else.
2. Jesus’ kingdom program was not quite what first century Judaism, illustrated by John the Baptist, expected. In the words, works, and person of Jesus, the kingdom has come. “In fact, we may actually go so far as to say that the kingdom of God is Jesus and that He is the Kingdom.”55 That is how we may reconcile the fact that Jesus offered the kingdom, and yet the kingdom has not come and will not come until his second advent. “The kingdom has both come and is still to come, because Jesus has come and is to come again.… What the Church now awaits is not something more complete than Christ Himself, but rather Christ manifest and in glory.” [56]

The Practical Lessons

1. “God does not always act as we expect.” [57]
2. Sometimes those who believe in Jesus Christ and work for the kingdom have their hope and faith tested. These trials are sometimes difficult — we must not be Pollyannaish about this. John would never be released from prison; he would, in fact, be cruelly murdered (Matt. 14:1–12).
3. Believers sometimes face a dulling of their hope in doubt. If this happens to us, we must remember that we are not abnormal and we are not alone. John the Baptist was a man of great character and courage. He was a man to whom the Lord gave revelation. This temporary wavering of his faith was not due to a lack of spirituality, but to the infirmity of the flesh. [58]
4. Biblical teaching about the future is not merely a form of mental escape or fantasy. Rather, it is to fill our hearts with hope. Hope enables us to endure, not escape our trials. Paul the Apostle spoke to the Thessalonians about the “steadfastness of hope” (1 Thess. 1:3). [59]
5. “Many answers to our questions are already in the Bible.” [60] Jesus knew that John would recognize the miracles he performed as being the fulfillment of the words of Scripture about him. In times of trial and difficulty we are to flee to the promises of Scripture. These promises, says the author of Hebrews (6:18–19), give us a sure anchor of the soul — an anchor that even the stormiest seas of life cannot dislodge.
6. Finally, there are Jesus’ instructions to John’s disciples, “Go and report to John what you hear and see.” What this means is that the way for the anchor of faith and hope to be planted in our congregations and families “is simply a more frequent and faithful exposure to the words and works of Jesus,” who is the Christ. The way of faith and hope, says Bruner, is “an expository, evangelical teaching ministry.” The religious world today is filled with new techniques for growth and renewal. Some may be of some help. But faith and hope come only from Jesus’ Word. “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:17). [61]

Part II: The Significance of the Miracles of Jesus

The Nature of Messiah’s Miracles

Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know — (Acts 2:22). 

You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him (Acts 10:38).

The Definition of Jesus’ “Miracles”

Matthew says of Jesus during this phase of his ministry, “Large crowds followed Him” (Matt. 8:1). Having said that, he gives details of ten miracles performed by Jesus. [62] As we consider this aspect of Jesus’ work, it is important to define precisely what it is. We must not sidestep this supernatural aspect of the Gospel narratives. As R. B. Kuiper once said, “To strip Christianity of the supernatural is to destroy Christianity.” [63] C. S. Lewis defined the word miracle as “an interference with Nature by supernatural power.” [64] Norman Geisler’s definition is similar but fuller: A miracle is “an event that is beyond nature’s power to produce, that only a supernatural power (God) can do…. A miracle is a divine intervention into the natural world. It is a supernatural exception to the regular course of the world that would not have occurred otherwise.” [65] Anthony Flew adds, “A miracle is something which would never have happened had nature, as it were, been left to its own devices.” [66]

These definitions are quite appropriate for defining the miracles of Jesus. [67] He cleansed lepers (Matt. 8:2–3), who were infected with the terrible, incurable disease that left them grotesque in body and ostracized from society. [68] He healed the paralyzed (Matt. 8:5–13; 9:2–7), and a fever left with his touch (8:15–15). He expelled demons (8:16, 28–34; 9:32–34), and when in a boat on the sea in a terrible storm, he spoke, and the wind ceased, and the water was calm (9:23–27). He instantly healed a woman with a hemorrhage (Matt. 9:20–22), and he raised a little girl from the dead (9:18–19, 23–25). He touched the eyes of two blind men, and their vision was restored (9:27–31). A mute man was given back his ability to speak (9:32–33).

Having given specific examples, Matthew went on to say that as Jesus was traveling through the villages preaching and teaching in the synagogues, he was also “healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness” (9:35; cf. 8:16, “all who were ill”). At this stage it was, no doubt, his miracles that were exciting the widest attention.

The Classification of Jesus’ Miracles

According to Terminology

There are a number of Greek words used of the miracles of Jesus. [69] For example, John sent his question from prison because he had heard of “the works of Christ” (τὰ ἔργα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ta erga tou Christou, Matt. 11:2). It becomes clear elsewhere that Jesus’ works were “the works of God,” i.e., the Father did these miraculous activities through him (John 9:3; cf. 14:10). [70]

Other terms are used of Jesus’ miracles. On the day of Pentecost, Peter used three different words to describe them: “miracles and wonders and signs” (Acts 2:22). The word miracle (δυνάμις, dynamis) literally means “power.” Miracles were mighty works, i.e., manifestations of divine power (Matt. 13:58). “Jesus [was] equipped with special power and [was] the bearer of power.” [71] The word wonder (τέρας, teras) is used sixteen times in the NT, and in every occurrence it is combined with the word “sign.” Wonders are so-called because of the amazement and astonishment they effected in the observer (John 4:48). [72] The word sign (σημεῖον, sēmeion) is used many times in the NT of Jesus’ miracles (John 2:11; 6:2; 9:16; 11:47). The word lays stress on the event as being visually seen. The basic meaning is that the specific miracle is “a confirmatory, corroborative, authenticating mark or token.” [73] The miracles, then, were signs or indications that Jesus was Israel’s promised Messiah.

According to Sphere

Various scholars have tried to classify the miracles of Jesus according to the sphere in which they were performed. [74] For example, C. S. Lewis divided all the miracles into two categories: (1) “miracles of the old creation,” and (2) “miracles of the new creation.” [75] In the miracles of the old creation Jesus suddenly and locally did something that God does every day in a general way. For example, Jesus turned water into wine (John 2:1–11), but God does that every day through the natural processes of rain producing the growth of grapes from which grape juice is taken and fermented into wine. Jesus also took two fish and some bread and fed five thousand (Matt. 14:13–21), but God multiplies fish every day in ponds, rivers, lakes, and seas. Jesus healed many sick people, but God does so every day. The miracles of the new creation focus on what God will do in the future. Here Lewis spoke of such miracles as Jesus’ walking on water (Matt. 14:22–33), his transfiguration (Matt. 17:1–13), and his resurrection from the dead. Such miracles look ahead to the new order. [76]

B. F. Westcott, the noted NT scholar, divided the miracles into three spheres according to their respective reference to nature, man, and the spirit world. [77] An equally good three-fold arrangement differentiates between miracles performed in the realm of nature (e.g., the stilling of the storm), those performed in the realm of super-nature (i.e., the expulsion of demons), and those performed in the derangement of nature (i.e., sickness, disease, and death). [78] Yet another suggestion came from Edinburgh professor, John Laidlaw, who arranged the whole list into nature miracles, healing miracles (or “redemption-miracles”), and miracles of resurrection. [79]

The Characteristics of Jesus’ Miracles

New Testament professor, Everett Harrison, lists several characteristics of Jesus’ miracles. First, they were historical. [80] Unlike the miracle stories of the Hellenistic world and rabbinic literature, Jesus’ miracles are set in an historical framework. [81] They are free of the superstitious elements of first century wonder tales and magic stories. They are told as if they really happened. [82]

Second, they were eschatological. [83] The author of Hebrews described the miracles of our Lord and his apostles as “the powers of the age to come” (Heb. 6:5). The Jews of the NT era divided history into this present evil age and “the age to come,” i.e., the future messianic age of millennial bliss. [84] That future age would be characterized by miraculous signs and wonders (cf. Isa. 35:1–6). Those “powers” or mighty works were signs that the age to come had temporarily broken in on the present age. The mighty works of Christ and his apostles were a foretaste of the coming millennial age. [85]

C. S. Lewis said, “God does not shake miracles into Nature at random as if from a pepper-caster. They come on great occasions: they are found at the great ganglions of history — not of political or social history, but of that spiritual history which cannot be fully known by men. If your own life does not happen to be near one of those great ganglions, how should you expect to see one?” [86] A ganglion is a mass of nerve cells forming a nerve center outside the brain or spinal cord. Lewis was using the term of a crisis time in history, and he was making the very correct observation that true miracle working people do not abound on every page of Scripture. [87] In fact, they are confined almost exclusively to five periods of biblical history: (1) the deliverance of the people of Israel from Egypt and their establishment in Canaan under the leadership of Moses and Joshua. (2) The struggle of true revelation against paganism under Elijah and Elisha, (3) the beginning of “the times of the Gentiles” (Luke 21:24), when the Lord offered proof through Daniel and his companions of his supremacy over the gods of the heathen, (4) the First Advent of Christ and the apostolic era when the new covenant was inaugurated and the Age of the Spirit began, and (5) the time of the Second Advent when both Messiah (Isa. 35:5–6; 61:1; Heb. 6:5) and his servants (Rev. 11:3–12) shall perform miraculous signs. Outside these periods, miracles are very rare. [88]

Third, the miracles are reasonable, i.e., they are not improbable or fantastic. They were not “antinatural,” says Geisler. [89] Several years ago David Pelliter, the son of a Protestant minister, claimed to be able to see without an eye. He had lost his left eye in an accident, and he would travel to meetings during which he would remove his glass eye, cover the other one, and read things collected at random from the audience. It was a magical trick — the blindfold was so placed that there was an opening along the bridge of the nose — but many were deceived. In the Gospels Jesus healed blindness, but he never caused anyone to see without a physical eye. [90] As C. S. Lewis notes, in various fairy tales and ancient legends there are beasts that turn into men and men into beasts or trees. Trees talk, ships become goddesses, and a magic ring can cause food-filled tables to appear in solitary places. Such stories are fantasies, and the miracles of Christ bear no resemblance to them. [91]

The witty and sage evangelist, Vance Havner, once said, “When Jesus performed a miracle, He sometimes said, ‘Don’t tell it.’ He performed miracles but didn’t advertise them; we advertise them and don’t perform them.” [92]

One of my colleagues, Dr. David Reid, was watching a video with his granddaughter, Kirsten, who was 212 years old at the time. In the video Lazarus died, but little Kirsten Reid wanted to assure her grandfather that everything was OK. “Don’t worry, Grandpa Doc,” she said, quite earnestly, “Jesus can do magic!” [93] “Doctor Dave” realized that his granddaughter was in need of a little sound theology!

Fourth, the miracles of Jesus were useful. They were calculated, says Harrison, “to meet pressing human needs, such as the relieving of hunger, the cleansing of leprosy, the restoration of bodily powers atrophied through crippling illness, and many other conditions.” When Jesus was arraigned before Herod, the king hoped to see a miracle, but Jesus did none — it presented no genuine human need (Luke 23:8–11). [94]

Fifth, the miracles were performed in a variety of spheres. Jesus was not a traveling miracle worker specializing in one form of miracle, such as “leg lengthening,” or “slaying in the Spirit.” He healed the sick (Mark 1:29–31), delivered from disease (Mark 1:41–42), expelled demons (Mark 5:1–19), and raised the dead (Mark 5:35–43).

Sixth, the miracles were performed openly. Unlike the magicians of the day who performed in controlled surroundings with elaborate paraphernalia and accomplices, Jesus healed in the presence of many spectators and without dishonesty and artifice. [95] Even his enemies, the chief priests and the Pharisees conceded, “This man is performing many signs” (John 11:47). [96]

Seventh, Jesus’ healings were completed instantly. When there was a deviation from this, for example in the case of the blind man (Mark 8:22–25), there was an educative purpose. [97]

It should be noted here that Jesus cured true organic illnesses. He healed blindness, life-long paralysis, leprosy, epilepsy — and he raised the dead. This is in stark contrast to the modern “healings” of Pentecostalism. It is significant that Andre; Cole, the famous illusionist has had promises from Oral Roberts and Benny Hinn for years that they would provide him with documentation of organic illnesses healed in their meetings. In the end, they never provided any evidence — it does not exist. [98]

Eighth, Jesus’ miracles were gratuitous. No fees were ever charged. Unlike the shrines of Hellenistic healing cults and modern day healing services, no payments (“free will offerings”) were charged.

Finally, Jesus’ miracles were marked by freedom from retaliation. There is no incident recorded in the Gospels where he used his power to inflict punishment on those who opposed him or rejected him. His disciples were in favor of such acts (Luke 9:52–56), but not their Master.

The Credibility of Messiah’s Miracles

How are modern people to think about the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ miracles — his walking on water, his raising of the dead, his turning water into wine? After all, we live in the modern scientific world where people who step out of a boat sink in the water, where the dead remain in the grave, and where winemakers cannot fill their wine barrels from the water faucet — they must go through the slow process of growing the grapes, squeezing them, waiting for fermentation and then aging to take place. The biblical world seems almost mythical, and our world seems real. [99] Part of our problem is that we have not thought about how we are to think about this question.

Suppose we were to sit in a university class, and the professor were to give a lecture on how to investigate a historical text, i.e., an ancient literary work. He says, “Regardless of where one starts or approaches the evidence, as long as we are honest and objective, we shall all arrive at the same results.” Most, perhaps, would agree. What he has said is the essence of good science. But while we might all like to believe what he said, it is simply not true. The truth is that where one starts one’s investigation determines the results one will obtain. “Where a person starts powerfully shapes where he or she finishes.” [100]

The fact of the matter is that we all bring presuppositions to our study of the miracles of Jesus. We all have a worldview, a way of looking at life, and our worldview or set of presuppositions will greatly affect the way we read the biblical accounts of the miracles. [101]

Worldview # 1: Methodological Naturalism

The dominant worldview in today’s university world is naturalism. Naturalism says that the entire realm of nature is a “closed system of material causes and effects, which cannot be influenced by anything from ‘outside.’ Naturalism does not explicitly deny the mere existence of God, but it does deny that a supernatural being could in any way influence natural events, such as [miracles], or communicate with natural creatures like ourselves.” [102] Not all naturalists are atheists, but when they study scientific questions or religious questions they are “methodologically atheistic.” [103] Naturalism is the spirit of the age.

In the study of the life of Jesus, many scholars have taken the naturalistic point of view. [104] There cannot be miracles, they argue, so why even study the evidence? One of the most famous liberal scholars of the twentieth century was Adolf von Harnack. He wrote, “We are firmly convinced that what happens in space and time is subject to the general laws of motion, and that in this sense, as an interruption of the order of nature, there can be no such things as ‘miracles.’” [105] Rudolf Bultmann, the most influential NT scholar of the twentieth century, wrote, “The historical method includes the presupposition that history is a unity in the sense of a closed continuum of effects in which individual events are connected by the succession of cause and effect…. This closedness means that the continuum of historical happenings cannot be rent by the interference of supernatural, transcendent powers and that therefore there is no ‘miracle’ in this sense of the word.” [106]

Two centuries earlier, the Scottish philosopher, David Hume (1711–76), set forth the following argument: “[1] A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; [2] and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, [3] the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined.” [107] Hume was guilty of begging the question when he spoke of the unalterable experience or uniform experience of all people. In other words, he presumed to know that all possible experience will confirm naturalism. How could he know this unless he had access to all possible experiences? If Hume meant the uniform experiences of some people (those who have not experienced a miracle), then that is special pleading, because there are those who claim to have experienced a miracle — viz. the eyewitnesses of Jesus. [108] We can know the experience against miracles is uniform “only if we know that all the reports against them are false. And we can know all the reports to be false only if we know already that miracles have never occurred. In fact, we are arguing in a circle.” [109] “The only alternative to this circular arguing,” says Geisler, “is to be open to the possibility that miracles have occurred.” [110]

One final illustration of this worldview is Ernst Troeltsch (1865–1923), who taught theology at the universities of Bonn, Go/ttingen, and Heidelberg. In 1898 he wrote a paper setting forth the principle of analogy. [111] His argument was simple: “we must use our present experience and knowledge to understand the past. Since we do not experience anything that violates the regularities of nature, we must be skeptical of all claims to the contrary. Our experience of all events as similar or homogeneous suggests that the universe is a closed system that cannot admit interventions. This clearly rules out miracles.” [112] Such naturalism is a biased point of view. Someone may say, “But everybody has a viewpoint. The word bias is negative and should not be used.” I would respond that it is a very fair word for any viewpoint that unduly constricts the possibilities that a mind may consider. [113]

At this point it is obvious that presuppositions determine the conclusion. If we were to ask Harnack, Bultmann, Hume, or Troeltsch the question, “How did the resurrection faith of the disciples arise?” they would answer, “Well, it cannot be the miracle of the resurrection, because there cannot be miracles.”

It is dishonest for such scholars to say that it is due to their careful study of the documents that they have concluded that Jesus was not born of a virgin, or did not perform miracles, or did not rise from the dead. They started with the view that miracles could not happen, so when they investigated the miracles they concluded that the miracles did not happen. [114]

Furthermore, the use of analogy is not foolproof. John Locke once told the story of the King of Siam. The Dutch ambassador was entertaining the king. The tales the ambassador told him about his far-off country fascinated the king. Then the ambassador told him about the weather in Holland. He told him that the winters were very cold and that the water would become so hard that men walked upon it, and that it would bear an elephant, if he were there. At this point the king replied, “Hitherto I have believed the strange things you have told me, because I look upon you as a sober fair man; but now I am sure you lie.” [115] The King of Siam was using the principle of analogy. A skeptic would say that he was right to do so. In his experience there was no such thing as ice. But the King of Siam was actually wrong, for in Holland they do have ice.

A modern person may say that miracles are improbable. To this we must respond, “Of course they are improbable! They would not be miracles if they were not improbable. If they were common, repeatable events, they would be ordinary everyday events and not miracles.” [116]

Worldview # 2: Theistic Realism (or Biblical Supernaturalism)

The worldview that I am advocating is what Berkeley law professor, Paul Johnson, calls “theistic realism.” [117] A “theistic realist,” as I would use the term, refers to the Christian believer, the person who is convinced that God is objectively real, not merely a concept in his/her own mind. This leads me to three observations: First, if God exists, then the naturalists are ignoring the most important aspect of reality. Second, for the theistic realist, as for the naturalist, everything depends on the first argument; if God exists, then miracles are possible.

Dr. Lee Scarborough, a noted Southern Baptist educator and minister, was preaching one Sunday on Jonah and the great fish. Later at home, his little son asked a straightforward question: “Daddy, do you really believe that a fish could swallow a man and keep the man alive inside for three days and three nights?” The wise father replied, “Son, if God could make a man out of absolutely nothing to begin with, and if God could create the first sea creatures from absolutely nothing, don’t you think He would have the power to make a fish that could swallow a man and keep him alive for three days and nights if he wanted to?” The little fellow replied, “Well, if you’re going to bring God into it, that’s different.” [118]

A Christian university student was sitting in the library reading the Bible. A classmate walked over and asked, “How can you believe that? Don’t you have difficulty with a miracle like the dividing of the Red Sea?” “Yes,” said the young Christian, “I have difficulty with the Red Sea, but my difficulty is not how it was divided, but how it was created. For certainly he who made it could divide it.” [119]

My third observation has to do with theistic realists being Christian believers. I want to stress the word believers. I do not believe that those who come to believe in miracles do so through philosophical arguments. [120] Rarely do we find a person who goes through a rigorous philosophical process of establishing God’s existence, demonstrating that the God of the Bible is the true God, and finally fitting Jesus and his miracles into the framework. Most often a person discovers that he/she is spiritually lost and that the God of the Bible answers their deepest spiritual needs (forgiveness, cleansing, and peace with God). Then they find that the God of the Bible is said to have performed miracles. In the end, the basic ground for belief in the miracles is our estimate of Jesus himself. If we conclude that he was at most a prophet, we shall reject the idea of miracles. But if we come to see that he is the Son of God in the unique sense, i.e., the eternal Second Person of the Trinity, who has come to this earth as a man, we shall have no problem in thinking that he has control over nature itself. In short, if we believe in what C. S. Lewis calls, “the Grand Miracle,” i.e., the Incarnation, and if we believe that Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power, we shall easily conclude that the miracles are not only possible, not only probable, but true. [121]

Having said all this, the “theistic realist” examines the Gospel accounts and concludes that the evidence for the credibility of the miracles is weighty and strong. The following two arguments should be mentioned: [122]

First, the New Testament Documents are Reliable [123]

The documentary evidence in favor of the New Testament is vastly superior to that of any other book from the ancient world. The distinguished NT scholar, F. F. Bruce, noted that there are only about nine or ten good copies of Caesar’s Gallic War in existence. Likewise, there are only twenty decent manuscripts of Livy’s Roman History, only two manuscripts of Tacitus’ Histories and his Annals, [124] and only eight of Thucydides’ History. By contrast, there are today about 5,366 Greek manuscripts of the NT!

Furthermore, the NT manuscripts are old, i.e., they are very close in age to the originals. Thucydides wrote around 460–400 b.c. yet the earliest known manuscripts of his work belong around a.d. 900. The same is true of the history of Herodotus (c. 480–425 b.c.). No classical scholar would deny the authenticity of Thucydides or Herodotus because the earliest manuscripts of their work are 1, 300 years later than the originals. By contrast, copies of complete books of the NT survive that date from a little over 150 years after the originals were written. There is one fragment of John, viz. 52 (including John 18:31–33, 37–38), that may be dated around a.d. 114.

Finally, the NT is the ancient world’s most accurately copied book. Other ancient books have not been so authenticated. For example, the critical edition of the Mahābhārata one of the two national epics of India, is only about ninety percent accurate. The NT is another story altogether. There are numerous variant readings in these NT manuscripts, but through the science of textual criticism, the Greek text that most scholars use today is 99.5 percent accurate. The minor differences do not materially affect the meaning of any passages or call into question any article of the Christian faith. [125]

Second, the New Testament Writers were Men of Integrity

That our NT manuscripts are numerous, old, and accurate, does not prove that they are true. To establish the truthfulness of what the manuscripts say one must examine the quality and character of the original authors. As to the quality of the NT writers, all claim to be to be either eyewitnesses of the events they recorded, or contemporaries of Jesus who had access to eyewitness accounts of his ministry (a.d. 29–33). Matthew was a disciple of Jesus (10:3), Mark was a disciple of Peter (1 Pet. 5:13), John was an eyewitness (John 21:24; 1 John 1:1), James and Jude were members of Jesus’ family, Luke knew and interviewed eyewitnesses (1:1–4), and Paul was a contemporary of the Lord and a witness of his resurrection (1 Cor. 15:8).

As to the credibility and integrity of the witnesses, they easily meet the four criteria set out by David Hume. [126] The criteria have been translated in four questions by apologist Norman Geisler: [127] (1) Do the witnesses contradict each other? Aside from the differences of perspective one would expect in different eyewitnesses to the same events, the testimony of the Gospel writers is complementary and not contradictory. (2) Are there a sufficient number of witnesses? Six NT books are crucial to the topic of miracles, viz., Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, and 1 Corinthians. These books were all written while contemporaries of Christ were still alive, and one of them, viz. 1 Corinthians, was written two decades after Christ’s death and contains a list referring to over five hundred eyewitnesses of the resurrection — most of whom were still alive (1 Cor. 15:6). (3) Were the witnesses truthful? The writers set forth the greatest standard of human morality (e.g., Matt. 5–7) and love (e.g., 1 Cor. 13) known to mankind. Furthermore, they taught the divine imperative of truth (Rom. 12:9), and they insisted on the most scrupulous standards for their teaching (Luke 1:1–4; 2 Pet. 1:16). (4) Were the witnesses prejudiced? The NT writers admit their initial disposition not to believe the miracle of the resurrection (Luke 24:11, 25, 41), and they bore witness to that and other works of Christ when they had nothing to gain and much to lose — in fact, many of the apostles were martyred for their beliefs.

The Purpose of Messiah’s Miracles

They Were an Announcement of Messiah’s Kingdom

As Bultmann noted, Jesus “Himself understood His miracles as a sign of the imminence of the Kingdom of God.” [128] Matthew 12:28 “established the connection between miracles (in this case exorcism) and the kingdom.” The means of that connection is “the Spirit’s work in Jesus’ life.” [129] Rebuking the Pharisees, Jesus said, “But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.”

Jesus’ words do not mean that the kingdom had arrived in all its earthly splendor. Rather it was present in the person of the King, and it was present in the power of the kingdom. The Holy Spirit was upon him and the miracles were a sign pointing to his kingly work. The kingdom was being offered to the nation, and the words and works of Jesus demanded a response. The miracles were “like warning flags. They [signaled] the presence of a different order of reality.” [130] The miracles “were the awe-inspiring object lessons about which no one could be apathetic. In other words by their wondrous and signatory qualities they forced the issue: Was this message really what the messenger claimed or not? Miracles necessarily created a division in Jesus’ audience according to whether they believed or refused to believe.” [131]

They Were a Confirmation of Messiah’s Person

Jesus’ response to John the Baptist is an indication that he viewed his miracles as evidence that he was “the Expected One” (Matt. 11:3–5). “The miraculous deeds are…proofs…of His Messianic authority…[and identity]” [132] Two significant sermons in the Book of Acts indicate that this is how the Apostles understood the miracles as well. In his Pentecostal address to a Jewish audience, Peter spoke of “Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst as you yourselves know” (Acts 2:22). The events of Pentecost are best explained, the Apostle said, as the fulfillment of God’s kingdom promises in Jesus of Nazareth. God himself has accredited Jesus through the supernatural works that he did through that man. Sometime later, when the gospel was first proclaimed to Gentiles in Acts, Peter said, “You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God appointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him” (Acts 10:38). Here again the miracles are cited as evidence that Jesus was God’s anointed One. They were credentials of his divine appointment and of the revelation he gave.

They Were a Foretaste of Messiah’s Reign

The miracles were “not merely credentials of revelation,” said Warfield, “but vehicles of revelation as well.” [133] Others have called them, “a foretaste,” [134] “foreshadowing,” [135] or “proleptic transformation” [136] of the future kingdom. “The miracles of Jesus,” said Dennison, “are signs of what lies ahead…for the people of God.” [137]

The miracles, Saucy writes, reveal several particulars about the nature of the future kingdom: [138]

They Demonstrate that the Kingdom will be “Yahweh’s Promised Sabbath Rest”

It is significant that many of Jesus’ miracles of healing were performed on the Sabbath day (Mark 3:1–6; Luke 13:10–17; 14:1–6; John 5:1–18; 9:1–14). This must be seen against the backdrop of the Sabbath day (Exod. 20:8–11), the Sabbath year (Deut. 15:2), and the year of Jubilee (Lev. 25:13). The imagery of these days and years is picked up by Isaiah (58; 61:1–3) and the author of Hebrews (4:1–11) and used to picture the eschatological kingdom. The miracles prefigure this rest and release that shall belong to God’s people in the future sabbatical age. [139]

They Show that the Kingdom Will Mean “the End of Satan’s Chaotic Exploitation of the Creation”
It is not without significance that Jesus’ public ministry began with a conflict with Satan (Matt. 4:1–11). Soon after that event the first of several exorcisms took place (Mark. 1:23–28). The cries of the demons (“Have you come to destroy us?” Mark 1:24; cf. Luke 4:34), the close connection between the kingdom and exorcism in Matthew 12:28, and the account of the Seventy (Luke 10:17–18) make it clear that Jesus came to make “open war on the reign of Satan.” [140] The NT writers view “every malady and disorder of the creation [as] ultimately rooted in the chaos of Satan’s kingdom,” and they affirm that it was Jesus’ goal to destroy his works (1 John 3:8), the chief one being death (Heb. 2:14). The miracles of exorcism and healing are foreshadowings of the eschatological kingdom during which Satan will be bound (Rev. 20:1–3) and, at the end of its millennial phase, will be thrown into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:7–10). [141]

They Reveal that the Kingdom Will Manifest “the Final Actualization of Divine Mercy”

The Gospel writers often noted that the motive behind Jesus’ miracles was his mercy (Matt. 9:13; 20:30, 34). This is important because the OT prophets portrayed the messianic age as the time when Yahweh’s ultimate mercy (הֶסֶד, ḥesed̠, Isa. 54:8; 55:3; Mic. 7:20) and compassion (רַחֲמִים, raḥămîm, Isa. 14:1; 49:13; 54:7; Jer. 12:15; Ezek. 39:25; Zech. 1:16) would be revealed. The word mercy speaks of God’s pardoning grace as well as his faithful and merciful aid to his people. Jesus’ miracles were a sign pointing to that restorative and liberating time. [142]

They Indicate that the Kingdom Will See “the Realization of Purity from the Heart”

During his ministry Jesus ran afoul of the enforcers of purity in worship and Temple, namely, the Pharisees and Sadducees. He did so by his contact with unclean spirits (Mark 1:21–28) and by his touching those deemed ceremonially “unclean” in his day (e.g., lepers, Mark 1:41; the woman with the issue of blood, 5:25–29; the dead, 5:35–43; Gentiles, 7:24–30; sinners, 2:15–17; 8:1–10). For this he was condemned by his enemies (Matt. 11:19; Mark 2:16).

Jesus’ views differed with those of the Pharisees. For them purity was a “matter of defense; it was a hedge, a means of protection against being contaminated by what was impure. It demanded separation from the polluted. Purity was something fragile and vulnerable.” [143] Jesus, on the other hand, demonstrated an “offensive holiness…’that is not threatened or damaged by impurity, it is not a passive quality only to be established, which is liable to pollution and always needs to be protected.’” [144] Saucy writes:

Armed with the holy power of the kingdom He represented (i.e., the Holy Spirit), Jesus crossed the boundaries of…purity, reached into the realm of the unclean, and instead of being polluted Himself, He made others pure. Jesus showed that the purity of the kingdom is not in danger from anything outside the individual. Purity of the kingdom is something far more penetrating; purity is an issue of the heart (Matt. 15:1–3, 25–28; Mark 7:15)…. So the kingdom is inherently oriented toward purity, but it is a purity that operates in the deepest regions of the human heart, and Jesus’ miracles are indirect testimony to that fact. [145]

They Reveal the “Kingdom’s Inherent Physicality”

Jesus’ literal healing of the blind, the deaf, and lepers suggests that OT promises concerning the restoration of the earth’s desert places (Isa. 35:1–7), inauguration of beneficial climatic changes (Isa. 30:23–26), and correction of political wrongs (Isa. 2:4; Ps. 72:4) should also be taken literally. Saucy wrote that the miracles “showed that the Old Testament promises regarding the creation, human societies, and individuals called for physical and thus literal fulfillment in the kingdom. The kingdom of God is not a spiritual entity only.” [146]

In saying that the miracles are a “foretaste” of the kingdom, we are saying that the kingdom has not yet been established upon the earth. The miracles were “signs,” and it is the nature of a sign to point to something else. “It either authenticates or predicts a coming event…, but it is not to be identified with that event.” Jesus’ miracles did not bring about the great Sabbath rest upon the earth. “Those who were healed would again fall sick and die; the demons would escape complete subjugation until their ‘hour,’ and the creation would continue to suffer under the cosmic oppression of the evil one — all indications that the kingdom was not yet established.” [147]

Conclusion

In part two of this article, three things have been accomplished: First, we have considered the nature of Christ’s miracles. In doing so we have defined miracles, classified them according to terminology and sphere, and described their characteristics. The miracles of Jesus were historical, eschatological, reasonable, useful, performed in a variety of spheres, performed openly, accomplished instantaneously, gratuitous, and marked by a freedom from threats of retaliation. Second, we sought to establish the credibility of Christ’s miracles and in doing so contrasted the two clashing worldviews of methodological naturalism and biblical supernaturalism. Finally, an explanation of the purpose of miracles was set forth. Miracles, it was argued, served to announce the arrival of the kingdom, to confirm the person of Jesus as Israel’s Messiah, and to offer a foretaste of Messiah’s reign.

Appendix: The Miracles of Jesus [148]

The Nature Miracles

1. The turning of the water into wine, John 2:1–11 (§ 29).
2. The miraculous draft of fish, Luke 5:1–11 (§ 41).
3. The stilling of the storm, Matt. 8:23–27; Mark 4:35–41; Luke 8:22–25 (§ 65).
4. The feeding of the 5,000, Matt. 14:13–21; Mark 6:30–44; Luke 9:10–17; John 6:1–13 (§ 72).
5. The walking upon the water, Matt. 14:24–33; Mark 6:47–52; John 6:16–21 (§ 74).
6. The feeding of the 4,000, Matt. 15:32–38; Mark 8:1–9 (§ 79).
7. The coin in the fish’s mouth, Matt. 17:24–27 (§ 89).
8. The cursing of the fig tree, Matt. 21:18–22; Mark 11:12–14 (§ 129, 131).
9. The miraculous catch of fish, John 21:5–11 (§ 180).

The Healing Miracles

1. The official’s son, John 4:46–54 (§ 38).
2. The Capernaum demoniac, Mark 1:21–28; Luke 4:36–37 (§ 42).
3. Simon Peter’s mother-in-law, Matt. 8:14–15; Mark 1:30–31; Luke 4:38–39 (§ 43).
4. The leper, Matt. 8:1–4; Mark 1:40–44; Luke 5:12–15 (§ 45).
5. The paralytic, Matt. 9:1–8; Mark 2:1–12; Luke 5:17–26 (§ 46).
6. The lame man at Bethesda, John 5:1–18 (§ 49).
7. The withered hand, Matt. 12:9–14; Mark 3:1–6; Luke 6:6–11 (§ 51).
8. The centurion’s servant, Matt. 8:5–13; Luke 7:1–10 (§ 55).
9. The blind and mute demoniac, Matt. 12:22 (§ 61).
10. The Gerasene demoniacs, Matt. 8:28–34; Mark 5:1–20; Luke 8:26–39 (§ 66).
11. The woman with the hemorrhage, Matt. 9:20–22; Mark 5:25–34; Luke 8:43–48 (§ 67).
12. The two blind men, Matt. 9:27–31 (§ 68).
13. The dumb demoniac, Matt. 9:32–34 (§ 68).
14. The Syro-Phoenician woman, Matt. 15:21–28; Mark 7:23–30 (§ 78).
15. The deaf mute, Mark 7:31–37 (§ 79).
16. The blind man of Bethsaida, Mark 8:22–26 (§ 81).
17. The young epileptic demoniac, Matt. 17:14–20; Mark 9:14–29; Luke 9:37–43 (§ 87).
18. The man born blind, John 9:1–34 (§ 100).
19. The woman bent double, Luke 13:10–17 (§ 110).
20. The dropsical man (i.e., a man with edema), Luke 14:1–6 (§ 114).
21. The ten lepers, Luke 17:11–37 (§ 120).
22. Blind Bartimaeus and his companion, Matt. 20:29–34; Mark 10:46–53; Luke 18:35–43 (§ 126).
23. The High Priest’s servant’s ear, Luke 22:51 (§ 153).

The Resurrection Miracles

1. The widow’s son, Luke 7:11–17 (§ 56).
2. The daughter of Jairus, Matt. 9:18–26; Mark 5:21–43; Luke 8:40–56 (§ 67).
3. Lazarus of Bethany, John 11:1–44 (§ 118).

Multiple Healings/Miracles

1. The signs at Jerusalem, John 2:23–25 (§ 32).
2. At the beginning of the Galilee ministry (in the synagogues), Matt. 4:23–24 (§ 44).
3. Healings in Capernaum in the evening, Matt. 8:14–17; Mark 1:32–34; Luke 4:40–41 (§ 43).
4. More Galilean healings, Matt. 12:15–21; Mark 3:7–12 (§ 52).
5. More healings (the report to John the Baptist), Matt. 11:5; Luke 7:21 (§ 57).
6. Healings in the Galilean cities and villages, Matt. 9:35 (§ 70).
7. Healings in the wilderness, Matt. 14:14 (§ 72).
8. Healings at Gennesaret, Matt. 14:34–36; Mark 6:53–56 (§ 75).
9. Healings on the mountain, Matt. 15:29–31 (§ 79).
10. Healings in the Transjordan, Matt. 19:2 (§ 122).
11. Healings in the Temple, Matt. 21:14 (§128b).

Notes

1. This is the ninth in a series of occasional articles on the life of Christ.
2. Bruce L. Shelley, “Hope—Leaning into the Future,” Eternity (Jan., 1974): 23.
3. L. Nelson Bell, “Hope,” Christianity Today (Nov. 8, 1968): 35.
4. Rudolf Bultmann, “ἐλπίς,” TDNT 2 (1964): 518-19.
5. Bultmann, “ἐλπίς,” TDNT, 2:522, 530–31.
6. William Kelly, Lectures on the Gospel of Matthew (2d ed., London: Morrish, 1896; reprint ed., Sunbury: Believers Bookshelf, 1971), 245.
7. Craig S. Keener, Matthew, IVPNTC (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1997), 212; idem., A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 335.
8. Charles R. Swindoll, Hope: Our Anchor of the Soul (Portland: Multnomah, 1983), 4–7.
9. Harold S. Kushner, When Bad Things Happen to Good People (New York: Schocken, 1981), 6.
10. Keener, Matthew, 212–13.
11. Strauss famously questioned the historicity of this paragraph on the grounds that prisoners at Machaerus had no access to those outside. As Carson notes, however, Strauss was simply guessing about security arrangements at Machaerus. The Gospels indicate that Herod’s attitude toward John was ambivalent (Mark 6:17–26), and this paragraph indicates that John was able to communicate with his followers. Cf. David F. Strauss, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined (1846; reprint ed., London: SCM, 1973), 219–30 (esp. 229); D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 12 vols., ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 8:261. The evidence in favor of the historical reliability of the paragraph is strong. Cf. W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, ICC, 3 vols. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991), 2:244–45.
12. Cf. David J. MacLeod, “Herald of the King: The Mission of John the Baptist,” EmJ 9 (Summer, 2000): 5-36.
13. Jesus shared with the OT writers that God is even now the “great King” (Matt. 5:35), the “Lord of heaven and earth” (Matt. 11:25). However, God’s eternal kingship over the universe is not what Jesus had in mind when he proclaimed, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 4:17). When he announced that the kingdom of heaven was at hand, he was speaking of the eschatological earthly kingdom that will be decisively manifested upon this earth—the kingdom that later revelation shows will not be seen until Christ’s second coming. Cf. C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to Saint Mark, CGTC (3d ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966), 65.
14. Cornelius Plantinga, Jr., Not the Way It’s Supposed to Be: A Breviary of Sin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 9–12. For a fuller discussion of the prophets’ description of the messianic kingdom, cf. Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom (Chicago: Moody, 1959), 217–54.
15. Twentieth century scholarship was quite divided on the timing of the kingdom. Illustrating the two poles in the debate are Albert Schweitzer and C. H. Dodd: (1) Schweitzer advocated a “thoroughgoing” or “consistent” eschatology in which the kingdom was yet future to Jesus. The miracles were viewed as signs that the kingdom was about to break forth, and the end of the age was imminent [Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, trans. W. Montgomery (New York: Macmillan, 1961), 370–97 and passim]. (2) Dodd, on the other hand, advocated a “realized eschatology,” the thesis of which was that the kingdom was inaugurated during the earthly ministry of Christ (C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom [rev. ed., New York: Scribner’s, 1961], vii-ix, 31–33, 55–59). Most scholars since have placed themselves somewhere in between the two poles. Cf. the following works for discussion and bibliography: McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom, 7–15; George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future (1964; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 3–42; G. R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 75–80.
16. Hill argues against the translation, “has arrived and is here.” Cf. David Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, NCB (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 104–5.
17. David J. MacLeod, “The Baptism of Christ, or: The Anointing of the King,” EmJ 9 (Winter, 2000): 135-54.
18. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 109–11, in Josephus, 10 vols., trans. Louis H. Feldman et al (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965), 9:76–79. Josephus identifies the cuckold as Herod, while Matthew and Mark identify him as Philip (Matt. 14:3; Mark 6:17). They are one and the same person. For a satisfying resolution to the problem, cf. Harold W. Hoehner, Herod Antipas, SNTS Monograph Series 17 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 131–36.
19. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 118–19 (9:82–85). John’s preaching against Herod Antipas was embarrassing to the tetrarch and it was politically explosive. Antipas’ first wife was the daughter of Aretas IV, king of the Nabataean kingdom. Antipas’ divorce of Aretas’ daughter was taken as an insult to the Nabataean royal family, and it eventually led to an invasion of Antipas’ lands. His troops were defeated, and he would have been expelled from his territory had not the Romans intervened (Jewish Antiquities 109–115 [9:76–81]; cf. Hoehner, Herod Antipas, 136–46).
20. Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Gospel of Matthew, trans. Peter Christie (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1884), 221.
21. Carson, “Matthew,” 261. Matthew “distinguishes between his own understanding and insight, drawn from his post resurrection perspective, and the gradual development of that understanding historically, including the Baptist’s doubts.”
22. Ὁ ἐρχόμενος was not used of the Messiah in intertestamental literature. The basis for its use is found in the OT (Psa. 118:26; Isa. 59:20; Dan. 7:13; Mal. 3:1). Cf. Carson, “Matthew,” 261. Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1–13, WBC (Dallas: Word, 1993), 300.
23. Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution (2d ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 205; cf. Hermann W. Beyer, “ἕτερος,” TDNT 2:702. “The qualities which Jewish expectation attributed to the Messiah might better fit another than Jesus.”
24. It is so surprising, in fact, that some have not been able to accept doubt as the true explanation. Other explanations of John’s question include the following: (1) Many of the Fathers as well as Calvin and Bengel argue that John was asking this question not for his own sake but for the sake of his followers. On the Fathers, see Editors’ note in ANF, 3:375, n. 15. They cite Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine, Hilary, Jerome, and Ambrose. Also see: John Calvin, A Harmony of the Gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke, 3 vols., trans. T. H. L. Parker [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972], 2:2; John Albert Bengel, New Testament Word Studies, 2 vols., trans. C. T. Lewis and M. R. Vincent [Philadelphia: Perkinpine and Higgins, 1864], 1:164. (2) Plummer concluded, “it was John’s patience that was failing, not his faith.” He wanted Jesus to more publicly declare himself to be the Messiah. Cf. Alfred Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew [London: Robert Scott, 1915], 160. So also: Henry Alford, The Greek Testament, vol. 1: The Four Gospels (1861; reprint ed., Chicago: Moody, 1958), 114. (3) Fenton, discounting the historicity of Matthew 3:14–17 (the account of Jesus’ baptism) argued that only in prison did John come to believe that Jesus was the Messiah. The question in 11:3 marks the beginning of John’s faith, not of doubt. This view requires ignoring the testimony of Matthew 3:14–17, as well as John 1:30–36, apparently. Cf. J. C. Fenton, Saint Matthew, WPC (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963), 174–75. (4) Morris suggests that John was simply puzzled. He was wondering why Jesus had not yet inaugurated his judgment. This view is probably part of the correct view, but by itself it does not explain the rebuke of verse 6. Cf. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 275. (5) The majority of modern commentators take the view that John’s question reflects his own doubts about Jesus and his ministry. E.g., Meyer, The Gospel of Matthew, 221; Kelly, Lectures on the Gospel of Matthew, 244–45; Alan Hugh, M‘Neile, The Gospel according to St. Matthew (London: Macmillan, 1915), 151–52; Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 300.
25. Meyer, The Gospel of Matthew, 221.
26. Carson, “Matthew,” 262; cf. James D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975), 55–62.
27. In this section of my article I am following the stimulating discussion of Frederick Dale Bruner, Matthew, A Commentary, 2 vols., vol. 1: The Christbook (Waco: Word, 1987), 408–9.
28. Viktor E. Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning, trans. Ilse Lasch (rev. ed., Boston: Beacon Press, 1962), 69–79 (esp. 74). Cf. Shelley, “Hope—Looking into the Future,” 55.
29. William Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, 2 vols. (rev. ed., Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975), 2:2.
30. The categories are Bruner’s. Cf. The Christbook, 410–11.
31. Hagner (Matthew 1–13, 301) warns against the “triumphalism of an over-realized eschatology.”
32. Cf. the calls for “holistic mission” in James F. Engel and William A Dyrness, Changing the Minds of Missions (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 2000), 21–25 and passim.
33. Cf. Bruner, The Christbook, 411.
34. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 336.
35. Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, 276; cf. Kelly, Lectures on the Gospel of Matthew, 246.
36. Davies and Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 2:243.
37. This reference to the literal poor, suggests Hagner (Matthew 1–13, 301), indicates that these are actual miracles and are not to be understood spiritually or metaphorically.
38. “Since the Christian gospel in its fullness could not be preached before the atoning death of Jesus that is at its heart, we should probably not understand the verb in this way” (Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, 277).
39. Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Matthew, 160; cf. Davies and Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 2:242.
40. Bruner, The Christbook, 412.
41. Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Matthew, 160.
42. S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., “John’s Doubts about Jesus’ Messiahship,” BBB (Sept. 19, 1976): 3.
43. Johnson, “John’s Doubts about Jesus’ Messiahship,” 3; cf. Donald Grey Barnhouse, His Own Received Him Not, But… (New York: Revell, 1933), 69–70.
44. Cf. Oswald T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church (3d ed., Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1955), 74–77; Anthony A. Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 213–14. It must be emphatically stated, however, that those who do preach the genuine offer of the earthly, Davidic kingdom do also proclaim the need for the substitutionary death of the Savior. Amillennial authors have yet to produce one dispensationalist who actually teaches that had the Jews accepted the kingdom, the cross would have been unnecessary. If we dispensationalists agree that we need to be clear in our understanding that the cross must precede the kingdom, our amillennial opponents should likewise agree to be fair in representing what dispensationalists actually say. Too often theological debate is waged with straw men. Cf. Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism (rev. ed., Chicago: Moody, 1995), 149–53.
45. Johnson, “John’s Doubts About Jesus’ Messiahship,” 3.
46. Bruner, The Christbook, 413.
47. Cf. Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 301; F. Hauck, “μακάριος,” TDNT 4 (1967): 367.
48. Gundry, Matthew, 68; Carson, “Matthew,” 131; BDAG, s.v. “μακάριος,” 611 (“privileged recipient of divine favor”).
49. LSJGL, “σκανδάλη,” 1604.
50. Bruner, The Christbook, 413.
51. Bengel, New Testament Word Studies, 1:164.
52. “The disciples took offence at His sufferings,” says Guhrt, “because such suffering was incompatible with their preconceptions.” Cf. Joachim Guhrt, “Offence,” NIDNTT, 2:708.
53. Cf. H. Giesen, “σκανδαλίζω,” EDNT, 3:248.
54. Joachim Jeremias, Jesus’ Promise to the Nations, SBT 24, trans. S. H. Hooke (London: SCM, 1958), 46.
55. Cranfield, The Gospel According to Saint Mark, 66. Cranfield writes, “The fact that the kingdom of God is, for the evangelists, identical with Jesus Himself is indicated by the way in which a reference to Jesus may be parallel to a reference to the kingdom (e.g., Mark 10:29 = Matt. 19:29 = Luke 18:29; Mark 9:1 = Matt. 16:28).
56. Cranfield, The Gospel According to Saint Mark, 66.
57. Keener, Matthew, 212.
58. Meyer, The Gospel of Matthew, 221.
59. Shelley, “Hope—Leaning into the Future,” 55.
60. Keener, Matthew, 213.
61. Bruner, The Christbook, 411.
62. Thirty-five separate miracles of Jesus are recorded in the Gospels. Matthew mentions twenty; Mark, eighteen; Luke, twenty; and John, seven. These are only a selection of the many that he performed (Matt. 4:23–24; 11:4–5; 21:14; John 20:30). Cf. Charles Caldwell Ryrie, The Miracles of Our Lord (Nashville: Nelson, 1984), 11. For a list of the specific miracles as well as a list of other occasions when Jesus performed multiple miracles, see the appendix at the end of this article.
63. Quoted by John Blanchard, More Gathered Gold (Welwyn, England: Evangelical Press, 1986), 206.
64. C. S. Lewis, Miracles: A Preliminary Study (New York: Macmillan, 1947), 15.
65. Norman L. Geisler, Miracles and the Modern Mind (1982; rev. ed., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 14.
66. Anthony Flew, “Miracles,” The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 8 vols., ed. Paul Edwards (New York: Macmillan, 1967), 5:346.
67. Brown cautioned that miracles should not be viewed as violations of the laws of nature. It must be remembered that ours is a contingent universe ever dependent upon the presence of God in providentially holding all things together (Col. 1:17). Augustine’s remark that miracles are “not contrary to nature, but contrary to what we know as nature” is valid (City of God 21.8, in NPNF, 1st Series, 2:459). We must avoid “identifying divine power only with those instances where nature appears to be set aside.” In doing so, we avoid the double danger of banishing God from the normal and believing only in a God-of-the-gaps, a God who is only found in the gaps of our natural knowledge (Brown, Miracles and the Critical Mind, 291). Brown here follows Torrance who argued that the miracles of Jesus did not involve “in any way the suspension of the space-time structures which we call ‘natural law.’” Rather they expressed “the re-creating and deepening of that order in the face of all that threatens to break it down through sin, disease, violence, death, or evil of any kind.” Cf. Thomas F. Torrance, Divine and Contingent Order (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981), 24.
68. The description of leprosy in the Bible (Lev. 13) suggests more correspondence between the biblical form and clinical leprosy than has been conceded by some medical practitioners and biblical commentators. Cf. R. K. Harrison, “Leper,” ISBE 3 (1986): 103-6 (esp. 105).
69. Cf. C. F. D. Moule, “The Vocabulary of Miracle,” in Miracles: Cambridge Studies in their Philosophy and History, ed. C. F. D. Moule (London: Mowbray, 1965), 235–38.
70. Georg Bertram, “ἔργον,” TDNT 2:642–43.
71. Walter Grundmann, “δυνάμις,” TDNT 2:301.
72. O. Hofius, “Miracle,” NIDNTT, 2:633; cf. Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, “τέρας,” TDNT 8:124–25. Cf. also the discussion of the θαῢμα word group in W. Mundle, “Miracle,” NIDNTT, 2:621–26.
73. Hofius, “Miracle,” 626.
74. Saucy rightly observes that all attempts to classify the miracles are in a sense unnatural and unbiblical. To the Gospel writers all of these works of Christ (exorcism, healing, authority over nature) were acts of supernatural power that evoked wonder in observers and pointed to Jesus’ mission against the kingdom of Satan. Cf. Mark R. Saucy, “Miracles and Jesus’ Proclamation of the Kingdom of God,” BS 153 (July, 1996): 282, n. 4.
75. Lewis, Miracles: A Preliminary Study, 159–95.
76. Brown took respectful issue with Lewis’ categories, believing that most of the miracles in the Gospels are anticipations of God’s new order breaking into our order. Colin Brown, That You May Believe: Miracles and Faith Then and Now (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 50; idem., Miracles and the Critical Mind (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 237. “It is one thing to say that fish are daily multiplied in the sea and wheat grown in abundance in the fields. It is another thing to say how dead fish could multiply on land and loaves multiply without benefit of planting the seed, growing period, harvesting, and baking” (Miracles and the Critical Mind, 290).
77. Brooke Foss Westcott, Characteristics of the Gospel Miracles (Cambridge: Macmillan, 1859), 8.
78. Everett F. Harrison, A Short Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 112–13. Cf. also the discussion of classification by C. F. D. Moule, “The Classification of Miracle Stories,” in Miracles: Cambridge Studies in their Philosophy and History, 239–43.
79. John Laidlaw, Studies in the Miracles of Our Lord (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1900), 15, 21.
80. Extra biblical evidence for Jesus’ miracles comes from Josephus, writing in the 90s. He wrote, “About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly.” Cf. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.63, in Josephus, 10 vols., trans. Louis H. Feldman et al (Cambridge: Harvard, 1965), 9:48–51. This much-debated section of Josephus is no doubt genuine. It is found in every available manuscript of Josephus, it is cited by Eusebius (Church History 1.11, in NPNF, 2d Series, 1:98), and the vocabulary and style are basically Josephan. See the editorial note of Feldman, 49.
81. Bultmann and other form critics regarded the miracle-stories as a later stratum in the gospel tradition, and so historically dubious. The shape of the Gospels was dictated by the needs of the early church (Rudolf Bultmann, The History of the Gospel Tradition, trans. John Marsh [New York: Harper & Row, 1963], 11–16, 218–44). Hunter tellingly asks, “If the early proclamation of the gospel [by Jesus] had no need of a savior who worked miracles, how came the evangelists to include so many?” (Archibald M. Hunter, The Work and Words of Jesus [rev. ed., Philadelphia: Westminster, 1973], 82, n. 1). As Manson noted, “Miracle is not a late importation into the tradition of Jesus, but constitutes the primary stratum. Nor need we suppose with Bultmann that, to satisfy the community’s needs, miracle-narratives were dragged in or taken over into the Christian tradition from Jewish and Hellenistic sources” (William Manson, Jesus the Messiah [London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1943], 45–46; cf. Bultmann, 234–41). Hunter added (82), “[Miracles] are part of the total picture of Jesus in the gospels, and we can no more eliminate them from the record than we can eliminate the water mark from a piece of good note-paper.”
82. It should be noted that the miracles appear in a variety of different literary forms (e.g., didactic sayings [John 11:1–44], miracle stories [Matt. 8:1–3; Luke 17:11–19], parabolic teaching [Mark 3:20–27], summaries [Matt. 4:23–25; 9:35], controversies [Mark 3:1–6], and passion narratives [Luke 22:51]). See Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, 12–16, 209–44 and passim; Robert H. Stein, Jesus the Messiah: A Survey of the Life of Christ (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1996), 23.
83. The English word eschatology is from the Greek ἔσχατος (eschatos), meaning “last.” Eschatology is the study of the last things. According to the author of Hebrews (1:2) the “last days” began with the first coming of Christ. Some of the OT’s eschatological promises have already been realized (e.g., the atoning work of Christ, the coming of the Spirit). Other OT promises have not yet been realized and await the second coming of Christ (e.g., Christ’s return, the resurrections, the kingdom, and the judgments).
84. David Gooding, An Unshakeable Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 147.
85. G. H. Lang, The Epistle to the Hebrews (London: Paternoster, 1951), 101.
86. Lewis, Miracles: A Preliminary Study, 174.
87. That there are supernatural events spread throughout the Bible is not here denied. Cf. the charts in Geisler, Miracles and the Modern Mind, 145–54, and Jack Deere, Surprised by the Power of the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 255–61. Regrettably, the thesis of Deere’s book cannot be recommended. Cf. David J. MacLeod, “Surprised by the Power of the Spirit: A Review Article,” The Emmaus Journal 10 (Summer, 2001): 115-51.
88. B. B. Warfield, “Miracle,” in A Dictionary of the Bible, ed. John D. Davis (4th ed., 1924; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1971), 527; cf. John F. MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972), 112, n. 17. Anderson opined, “The purpose of the miracles was to accredit the Messiah to Israel, and not, as generally supposed, to accredit Christianity to the heathen.” Cf. Robert Anderson, The Silence of God (9th ed., London: Pickering & Inglis, n.d.), 162.
89. Geisler, Miracles and the Modern Mind, 101–9.
90. Geisler, Miracles and the Modern Mind, 103.
91. Lewis, Miracles: A Preliminary Study, 132.
92. Dennis J. Hester, ed., The Vance Havner Quote Book (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986), 146.
93. As told to me by David R. Reid, March 26, 2002.
94. Harrison, A Short Life of Christ, 114.
95. The Hellenistic and Jewish world was full of miracle claims by gods and magical workers. The miracles of Jesus are distinguished in at least seven ways from these Hellenistic and Jewish “miracles.” (1) The miracles of Jesus have no connection with magic or with magic methods. He was not a magician using a magician’s media and formulae. Magic, conjuration, cursing of people, and spells are all absent. He performed miracles by his authoritative word, to which he sometimes added a symbolic gesture. (2) He carried out no miracles of punishment or retaliation (Luke 9:51–56). (3) He refused to perform miracles to rescue himself (Matt. 4:1–11). (4) He forbade those he had healed from telling others about it (Matt. 9:30). (5) Unlike the Hellenistic and Jewish stories, the Gospels pay little attention to the miraculous process itself; rather they concentrate on the encounter of Jesus with the needy person (cf. Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, 221). (6) The miracles of Jesus were part of an eschatological event. They were the fulfillment of promises made in the OT. He is the Christ (“anointed”), and the kingdom comes with him. By his word he overcomes the kingdom of Satan and his demons. (7) The miracles presuppose the faith of the one who performs them and of the one on whom they are performed. They are “accomplished in a wholly personal relationship” (Matt. 13:58; Mark 9:14–29). “Hence there is no place for magic. It is not the knowledge of magic media and formulae, but the personal relationship between God and Jesus on the one side and Jesus and men on the other which works the miracle with no magical compulsions.” Grundmann, “δύναμις,” 302; cf. Hofius, “Miracle,” 630–31; Laurence J. McGinley, Form-Criticism of the Synoptic Healing Narratives (Woodstock, MD: Woodstock College Press, 1944), 96–143. On miracles in antiquity, also see: the following articles in Miracles: Cambridge Studies in their Philosophy and History: A. H. McDonald, “Herodotus on the Miraculous,” 81–91; B. S. Mackay, “Plutarch and the Miraculous,” 93–111; J. P. M. Sweet, “The Theory of Miracles in the Wisdom of Solomon,” 113–26; G. MacRae, “Miracle in The Antiquities of Josephus,” 127–47.
96. Evidence for the historicity of the miracles of Jesus comes from a hostile source written much later. The Babylonian Talmud (c. a.d. 500) says, “On the eve of Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place a herald went forth and cried, ‘He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy.’” This mention of sorcery is most likely a reference to Jesus’ miraculous expulsion of demons—which the scribes attributed to Satan. It is, nevertheless, unwitting testimony to the historicity of Jesus’ miracles. Cf. Sanhedrin 43a, Seder Neziḳin, vol. 3, ed. I. Epstein, in The Babylonian Talmud, 18 vols. (London: Soncino, 1935), 12:281.
97. The present writer understands the healing of the blind man to have been instantaneous with the application of spit and the laying on of hands. The second touch was to give the man a visual education, i.e., Jesus touched him the second time, and he immediately knew what all the objects were that he was seeing for the first time. The healing of the paralyzed also had a two-fold impact. The man’s limbs were healed, and he immediately knew how to walk—having never walked before or gone to a rehabilitation clinic.
98. For an assessment of modern day healing claims, cf. Andre; Cole, “Are Faith Healers for Real?” in Richard Mayhue, The Healing Promise (1994; reprint ed., Ferne: Mentor, 1997), 48–52; Hank Hanegraaff, Counterfeit Revival (Dallas: Word, 1997), 209–42; Brown, That You May Believe, 179–227.
99. Geisler, Miracles and the Modern Mind, 13.
100. This illustration was suggested by Stein, Jesus the Messiah, 17.
101. For an historical survey of the modern world’s treatment of miracles, cf. Mark J. Larson, “Three Centuries of Objections to Biblical Miracles,” BS 160 (Jan., 2003): 77-100.
102. Philip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial (2d ed., Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1993), 116–17.
103. Philip E. Johnson, Reason in the Balance (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1995), 98.
104. As A. B. Bruce long ago observed, philosophical bias is “the mother of much unbelief.… Much unbelief in the supernatural has its root in a priori speculative reasoning.” Cf. Alexander Balmain Bruce, The Miraculous Element in the Gospels (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1896), 7, 13.
105. Adolf Harnack, What is Christianity? trans. Thomas Bailey Saunders (rev. ed., New York: Putnam, 1903), 28–29. In citing Harnack, Bultmann, Hume, and Troeltsch, I am following Stein, Jesus the Messiah: A Survey of the Life of Christ, 19–20.
106. Rudolf Bultmann, “Is Exegesis Without Presuppositions Possible?” in Existence and Faith, trans. Schubert M. Ogden (Cleveland: Meridian, 1960), 291–92.
107. David Hume, “Of Miracles,” in An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, 10.1, ed. Anthony Flew (New York: Collier, 1962), 119.
108. Geisler, Miracles and the Modern Mind, 28–29.
109. Lewis, Miracles: A Preliminary Study, 123.
110. Geisler, Miracles and the Modern Mind, 29.
111. The paper was entitled, “On Historical and Dogmatic Method in Theology.” Cf. Ernst Troeltsch, Gesammelte Schriften (2d ed., 1922; reprint ed., Darmstadt: Scientia Verlag Aalen, 1962), 2:732.
112. Brown, Miracles and the Critical Mind, 129.
113. Johnson, Reason in the Balance, 217.
114. Stein, Jesus the Messiah: A Survey of the Life of Christ, 23.
115. John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding 4.15, ed. Alexander Campbell Fraser, 2 vols. (1690; London: Oxford University Press, 1894; reprint ed., New York: Dover, 1959), 2:367. According to his editor, Locke may have heard this story during his stay in Holland, when his Essay was in preparation (367, n. 4). The story has since been discussed by Bishop Sherlock, Bishop Butler, David Hume, and John Stuart Mill. Cf. Brown, That You May Believe, 33–40.
116. Brown, That You May Believe, 37. Brown writes (35), “Damon Runyon once remarked, ‘The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that’s the way to bet.’ The safe way to bet is to use analogy. But the use of analogy in betting is not foolproof. To the detached observer, analogy suggests that it is best not to bet at all.” The odds always favor the house.
117. Johnson, Reason in the Balance, 48–50.
118. Adrian Rogers, Believe in Miracles But Trust in Jesus (Wheaton: Crossway, 1997), 16.
119. Walter B. Knight, Knight’s Master Book of New Illustrations (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), 404.
120. I am here following Brown, That You May Believe, 60–61; idem., Miracles and the Critical Mind, 285.
121. S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., “The Messiah’s Year of Public Favor (2),” BBB (1987): 4; cf. Hunter, The Work and Words of Jesus, 131–58.
122. I am here following Stein, Jesus the Messiah, 23. Stein lists five other arguments that have been touched upon earlier in this article: (1) Jesus’ miracles were performed openly and in public. (2) That Jesus performed miracles was acknowledged by his opponents. (3) Jesus’ miracles were performed over a period of time and in a variety of circumstances. (4) The miracle accounts are found in every strata of gospel tradition. (5) Finally, the miracle stories are found in a variety of literary forms. For a more thorough discussion of the two points discussed here, cf. Geisler, Miracles and the Modern Mind, 75–82, 127–39.
123. F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (5th ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), 10–20, 62–75; Paul Barnett, Is the New Testament Reliable? (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1986), 33–48.
124. As Bruce noted (The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? 16), the manuscripts of Tacitus are incomplete.
125. Bruce M. Metzger, Chapters in the History of New Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963), 150–52.
126. Hume, An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding 10.1, “Of Miracles,” 117–18.
127. Geisler, Miracles and the Modern Mind, 135–37.
128. Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus and the Word, trans. Louise Pettibone Smith and Erminie Huntress Lantero (New York: Scribner’s, 1958), 173.
129. Saucy, “Miracles and Jesus’ Proclamation of the Kingdom of God,” 285.
130. Brown, That You May Believe, 38.
131. Saucy, “Miracles and Jesus’ Proclamation of the Kingdom of God,” 304.
132. Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, 219.
133. “The Idea of Revelation and Theories of Revelation,” in The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, 10 vols., vol. 1: Revelation and Inspiration (New York: Oxford University Press, 1932; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 47.
134. Joachim Jeremias, New Testament Theology, trans. John Bowden (New York: Scribner’s, 1971), 95.
135. Reginald H. Fuller, Interpreting the Miracles (London: SCM, 1963), 40.
136. A. E. Harvey, Jesus and the Constraints of History (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982), 97.
137. Quoted by Blanchard, More Gathered Gold, 206.
138. Saucy, “Miracles and Jesus’ Proclamation of the Kingdom of God,” 281–307 (esp. 307).
139. Saucy, “Miracles and Jesus’ Proclamation of the Kingdom of God,” 288.
140. Franz Mussner, The Miracles of Jesus, trans. Albert Wimmer (Notre Dame: Notre Dame University, 1968), 43.
141. Saucy, “Miracles and Jesus’ Proclamation of the Kingdom of God,” 290–92. Saucy notes that “in Matthew the lines between disease and demons blur as θεραπεύειν (‘to heal’) speaks of both healing diseases and casting out demons (4:24; 10:8).”
142. Saucy, “Miracles and Jesus’ Proclamation of the Kingdom of God,” 289–90.
143. Saucy, “Miracles and Jesus’ Proclamation of the Kingdom of God,” 294–95.
144. Klaus Berger, “Jesus als Pharisäer und Frühe Christen als Pharisäer,” Novum Testamentum 30 (1988): 240-41. Cited by Saucy, “Miracles and Jesus’ Proclamation of the Kingdom of God,” 294–95.
145. Saucy, “Miracles and Jesus’ Proclamation of the Kingdom of God,” 295.
146. Saucy, “Miracles and Jesus’ Proclamation of the Kingdom of God,” 307.
147. Saucy, “Miracles and Jesus’ Proclamation of the Kingdom of God,” 303.
148. Cf. Laidlaw, Studies in the Miracles of Our Lord, 11–12; Fuller, Interpreting the Miracles, 126–27. The paragraph numbers given in this list are those of A. T. Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospels For Students of the life of Christ (New York: Harper & Row, 1922).