Questions About Miracles – Part 5

Questions About Miracles—Part Five

(Con’t)

In contrast to this, we see the superiority of biblical miracles. The magicians of Egypt tried to reproduce Moses’ works by means of illusions and had some success at first (Ex. 7: 19ff; 8:6ff), but when God brought forth gnats from the dust, the sorcerers failed and ex­claimed, “This is the finger of God” (v.19). In the same way, Elijah silenced all claims of the prophets of Baal when he called down fire from heaven when they could not (1 Kings 18). Moses’ authority was vindicated when Korah and his followers were swallowed up by the earth (Num. 16). And Aaron was shown to be God’s man for the priesthood when his rod budded (Num. 17).

Jesus healed the sick (Matt. 8:14-15), made the blind to see (Mark 8:22-26), reached down and embraced lepers to heal them (1:40-45), and raised people from death (Luke 8:49-56). His pattern continued in the apostles after He was gone as we see Peter healing the beggar at the temple gate (Acts 3:1-11) and raising Dorcas from the dead (9:36-41). Hebrews 2:4 tells us the purpose of these miracles: “God [was] also bearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will.” As far as purposefulness, goodness, and confirmation of God’s message, these miracles are in an entirely different class to bending spoons and pointing to film cans. There is no comparison.

Biblical prophecy is also unique in that, while most predictions are vague and often wrong, the Scriptures are remarkably precise and accurate. In them, God foretold not only the coming of the destruction of Jerusalem (Isa. 22:1-25), but the name of the Persian ruler who would return them (44:28; 45:1) 150 years before it all happened. The very place of Jesus’ birth is cited in about 700 B.C. (Micah 5:2). His triumphal entry into Jerusalem was predicted by Daniel to the day in 538 B.C. (Dan. 9:24-26). No fortune-teller can boast of anything like this accuracy or consistency.

Finally, Christ predicted His own death (Mark 8:31), the means of death (Matt. 16:24), that He would be betrayed (26:21), and that He would rise from the dead on the third day (12:39-40). There is nothing like this anywhere in the occult prophecies or miracles. The resurrection of Jesus stands alone as the unique and unrepeatable event of history.

ARE MIRACLES VALUABLE?

We have shown that miracles are possible, believable, and historical. They don’t violate science, are not mere myths, and can be distinguished from even supernormal events. This is all fine in principle, but what good are they? Can we really believe miracu­lous reports? Besides, where would we be if we believed every story about miracles? Jesus, Mohammed, and Buddha can’t all be right! What value can miracles have if we don’t know which ones to believe?

David Hume stated a second objection; that the historical evidence is never enough to justify the belief in miracles (even though he thought he had eliminated the possibility of miracles with his first argument). He gave four reasons to reject the evidence for any miracle:

1. There is never a sufficient number of witnesses of good character.
2. Human nature is to exaggerate and find wonder in things.
3. Miracles abound among the ignorant.
4. Miracles have a self-canceling nature.

When we examine Hume’s objections, we find some problems. First, though he implies that if a miracle was witnessed by a good number of people, who were upstanding citizens (Objection 1), sober-minded (Objection 2), well educated and in a modem city (Objection 3), then he would believe it. Hume himself admits that the Jansenist miracles, occurring in his time in Paris among the upper-middle class, do meet these criteria, but he says, “And what have we to oppose to such a cloud of witnesses but the absolute impossibility or miraculous nature of the events which they relate?”^[1] (emphasis added) So in practice, Hume would never accept any evidence as sufficient to support a miracle. His real objec­tion is that miracles are impossible, and we have shown this to be false several times already. It does no good to look at historical evidence if the final judgment has already been made in favor of naturalism.

But Hume’s last objection actually supports the case we have been making. He said that all religions, even non-Christian religions, use miracles to support their claims. But if the same kind of evidence supports all religions, they cancel each other and can’t count for any of them. So miracles, he concludes, cannot support any religion. However, as we have seen earlier, Christian miracles are not of the same kind as those in other religions. The miracles that support Christianity are unique. This changes the way Hume’s argument looks. We can agree with him about miraculous claims in non-Christian religions and state the argument this way:

1. All non-Christian religions are supported by the same kind of “miracles.”
2. But such “miracles” have no evidential value because they are self-canceling.
3. Therefore, no non-Christian religion is supported by “miracles.”

This opens the way for a second argument:

1. Only Christianity has unique miraculous confirmation of its truth claims.
2. What has unique miraculous confirmation of its claims is true.
3. Therefore, Christianity is true (and all opposing views are false).

So Hume’s principals have led us straight to the confirmation of Christianity through its miracles. Where there is valid testimony and superior miracles, miracles have great value. We find that Christianity has better evidence and more witnesses writing closer to the time of the events than any other religion. Besides this, no religion offers the kind of miracles that Christianity can claim. No other religion has the record of specific prophecy or divine deliverance that the Bible gives. And no other religion has any miracle that can be com­pared to the resurrection of Jesus Christ in its grandeur or its testimony.

Notes

1. ↑ Hume, op. cit., p.133.