Providence and Miracles

CHRISTIANITY IS A FAITH THAT IS BASED UPON AND ROOTED in miracles. Take away miracles, and you take away Christianity Church history is replete with attempts to do this. From the attempts of the Enlightenment thinkers to reduce Christianity to a form of naturalism, to the biblical vandalism of nineteenthcentury Liberalism to explain away biblical miracles with fancifully contrived ethical parables, to Bultmann's systematic program of "de-mythologizing," the attacks have been relentless.

Excising the biblical accounts of miracles is an exercise in revisionism, a kind of canon reductionism. Like the ancient heretic Marcion, who produced an abridged version of the New Testament canon in which all references to the Old Testament God were deleted in order to satisfy Marcion's own aversion to that deity, so modern scholars, embarrassed and scandalized by biblical miracles, have sought to reconstruct a religion without them. Whatever kind of religion results is not the Christian religion. Christianity stands or falls with the biblical account of miracles. Without miracles there is no Exodus. Without miracles there is no resurrection. With no resurrection our faith is in vain.

As early as the first century, Paul had to do battle with skeptics of the miraculous and the supernatural. First Corinthians 15 is a case in point. Here Paul responds to those who want a Christianity without miraculous resurrection. He pushes the logic of such a position by using the ancient method of logical argument called reductio ad absurdum reasoning: Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have

fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise. For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! (1 Cor. 15:1-17) In this extended argument Paul first affirms the gospel and exhorts his readers to hold fast to it. He speaks of a "tradition" that had been handed over by the apostles. This is the apostolic tradition, which is the very foundation of the church. The specific tradition Paul has in view is the account of the resurrection of Christ, which fulfilled the Old Testament Scriptures and was verified by the eyewitness testimony of the apostles. After providing a summary of this eyewitness testimony, Paul adds himself to the list of eyewitnesses of the risen Christ. Then he proceeds to argue the consequences of a resurrection-less or miracle-less Christianity. The penultimate conclusion of this argument is found in verse 17, where Paul gave the if-then argument: "If Christ is not risen, your faith is futile."

Paul stresses the futility of constructing a Christian faith without miracles because the resurrection of Christ certainly fits into the "miracle" category. But, what exactly is the miracle category? What do we mean when we speak of miracles? Much confusion persists about this concept. There are those who argue that miracles occurred in biblical times but do not occur today. There are those who argue that miracles did not occur in biblical times and in fact never

occur. There are those who argue that miracles occurred in biblical times and still are occurring today.

Part of the problem we face with these disparate views is that there is disagreement regarding the nature of miracles. Naturalists reject miracles because naturalists, by definition, reject the supernatural and regard miracles as intrusions from the supernatural realm, which they deny exists at all. Naturalists operate with a world view that has no room or allowance for even the possibility of miracles. This position collides head-on with biblical Christianity and involves a dispute between two utterly irreconcilable world views.

However, even within the context of the Christian world view there is still the debate about whether miracles such as those recorded in sacred Scripture still occur today. The question is clouded by variant definitions of miracle. Most of those involved in this debate agree on several points, including: (1) God, in His providential government of the universe, is able to perform miracles. There is no dispute about the possibility of God to work in a manner that differs from His ordinary providence. (2) God did, in fact, perform miracles in the past, as recorded in the Bible. (3) Miracles are supernatural works of God, and (4) God is still working super-naturally today. All of these points are agreed upon by those who disagree on the question of whether God is still working miracles.

Here the definition of miracle becomes crucial. Some people loosely call all the works that have their ultimate causal power in God "miracles." For example, we often hear it said that the birth of a baby is a miracle. Now, surely the birth of a baby is an aweinspiring thing. It snaps our attention to the amazing reality of life itself. But there is nothing unusual or extraordinary about the birth of a baby.

Literally millions of such incidences occur every day all around the world.

I find it almost impossible not to be transfixed when I see a deer in the wild. I have had this experience hundreds, if not thousands, of times. But I never find it boring because I am taken by the beauty and grace of these creatures. The same may be said about the magnificence of sunsets, which provoke thoughts within me of the glorious majesty of God, who displays Himself in the beauty of His creation.

But in biblical terms a deer in the woods is not a miracle; nor is a sunset a miracle. They are normal parts of the natural realm that point beyond the natural realm to the supernatural God who makes them. Likewise, the birth of a baby is not usually considered within the theological category of miracle.

We usually can agree that all miracles are supernatural events. But the question remains, are all supernatural events miracles? Some people reverse these propositions and see them as tautological; that is, some would define a miracle as any supernatural event wrought by God. Luther, for example, routinely described as a miracle the divine work of regeneration, the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit that is wrought immediately in the soul of a human being. By "immediately" I don't mean "suddenly" (though it is that too) but rather a work that God the Holy Spirit works without the aid of some natural medium. He does not depend upon secondary causes for this effect but effects this spiritual transformation of the soul by the sole and immediate power of His own.

Part of the problem with reaching agreement on the definition of a miracle is that the Bible does not have a single word that explicitly is restricted to the English word miracle. Surely some English translations of the Bible contain the word miracle but that is a matter of the translator's choice of nomenclature. The concept of miracle is derived from three distinct biblical terms, which may be translated "signs," "powers," and "wonders." The theological concept of miracle is then extrapolated from the use of these terms in the Bible.

Technically, signs, wonders, and powers are not synonyms, and we fall into certain dangers when we seek to use them interchangeably, though they are often quite closely related. The marvelous works of God recorded in Scripture certainly manifest His power. They also evoke wonder from those who behold them. One of the most common words that attends the accounts of the miracles of Christ is the word astonished, or amazed. The word sign is used frequently for the works of Jesus, especially in the Gospel of John. A sign is something that points beyond itself to something else. When we approach the city of Orlando, we may read a road sign that declares "Orlando."

This sign announces the border, or edge, of the city; it is included within the city but it is not the city. For an event to be regarded as a sign it must have

significance"; it must point to something beyond itself.

When we consider the purpose of biblical miracles, we see that there are many.

God used miracles to deliver the Israelites from their bondage in Egypt. Jesus used His miracles to alleviate suffering and to give sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, etc. But these immediate purposes did not exhaust the purpose of these works. They also served as signs. They pointed to something else beyond the function at hand. One of the most important, if not the most important, function of biblical miracles was to attest to agents of revelation. They provided what John Locke called the "credit of the proposer."

One example of this is shown in the New Testament account of Nicodemus coming to Jesus: There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, "Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him." (John 3:1-2) Because we have an inspired record of what Nicodemus said does not mean we can infer that his judgment regarding Jesus was an inspired judgment or that the inference he declared is valid. Though Nicodemus was expressing his fallible human judgment about the matter, he was expressing a conclusion that is consistent with the Bible itself. He concluded that Jesus was a teacher sent from God because Jesus performed miracles. That was the only conclusion he could come to if his premise was correct that "no one can do these signs unless God is with him." This raises the whole question of whether people or devils who are not sent by God can also perform miracles. We will take that up in the next chapter. For now we simply observe that Nicodemus uttered a universal negative proposition with an exceptive clause added to it. His universal negative proposition was that no one could (or was able) to perform these works without some necessary condition first being met. The necessary condition is indicated by the word unless. The necessary condition was the help of God.

If Nicodemus was correct, then we understand that one of the most significant points of the biblical miracle is its attesting to agents who are sent from and

speak for God. This important function of the biblical concept of miracles is not demonstrated solely by the judgment and testimony of Nicodemus. In Hebrews we read: Therefore we must give the more earnest heed to the things we have heard, lest we drift away. For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just reward, how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will? (Heb. 2:1-4) Here God bears witness to the apostolic testimony by confirming it with signs and wonders. This idea is deeply rooted in the Old Testament, as may be seen with the problem Moses encountered when he met God in the Midianite desert: Then Moses answered and said, "But suppose they will not believe me or listen to my voice; suppose they say, The LORD has not appeared to you,'" So the LORD said to him, "What is that in your hand?"

He said, "A rod."

And He said, "Cast it on the ground." So he cast it on the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from it. Then the LORD said to Moses, "Reach out your hand and take it by the tail" (and he reached out his hand and caught it, and it became a rod in his hand), "that they may believe that the LORD God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has appeared to you." (Exod. 4:1-5) Moses was faced with a problem of credibility on two fronts. The first problem he had was to convince Pharaoh to set free the entire slave-labor force that was so important to his national economy. Pharaoh was hardly likely to do that on the sage advice of an aged shepherd from the wilderness! The second problem Moses had was to persuade a powerless horde of humanity to follow him in the biggest wildcat strike in recorded history. This was a credibility problem with

a vengeance! When Moses asked God how it would be possible for him to overcome this credibility problem God's answer was to equip Moses with the power to perform miracles, which did ultimately persuade the people of Israel— and Pharaoh— that Moses was sent from God.

As we seek a precise definition for miracle, we must not only include its function as a sign or as attestation of spokesmen for God (agents of revelation), but we must also observe that biblical miracles were actions and events that were observable in the external world. As Paul declared to Herod Agrippa, "This thing was not done in a corner" (Acts 26:26). The biblical miracles were public and open to scrutiny, unlike the miraculous "attestation" of self-pro-claimed prophets like the Mormon Joseph Smith. Christianity is not a mystery religion whose revelation is restricted to an elite secret group of initiates.

To avoid such confusion and to protect against a retreat into claims that cannot be verified or falsified by public witnesses, the biblical miracles were staged in the external world. Reformed theology historically defined miracles as those supernatural acts performed in the external, perceivable world by the immediate power of God, producing supernatural and extraordinary effects that only God can do. In Romans Paul speaks of God's ability to bring something out of nothing and life out of death, a power that no creature possesses.

Sometimes the definition of miracle is expressed in shorthand terms as a work that is against the normal laws of nature, an action that is contra naturam. This is a useful distinction as long as we are careful to remember that nature's laws are God's laws and that they do not operate independently from Him. Nature, even in the ordinary daily operations we perceive, is always subject to Supernature. If the laws of nature are the providential will of God, they can hardly be "violated," because God does not violate Himself.

By this we see that the contra used in the Latin term actually refers to the difference between God's ordinary providence and His extraordinary providence.

Though He normally works in one way, which we call ordinary because it is usual and customary, He is still able to work in unusual or extraordinary ways as well.

As human beings we are daily working against the "laws" of nature. When we lift heavy weights from the ground we do not suspend or violate the law of gravity. Rather, we simply counteract it by a stronger force; the forces we use are finite and unlimited. We are potent but not omnipotent. These same laws can be counteracted by an omnipotent force that exceeds anything we can ordinarily accomplish ourselves. We lack the power to make ax heads float or turn water into wine. We are able to swim in the water but not walk upon the water. Such activities are indeed extraordinary and carry the sign of the miraculous.

Miracles by God's Commands

That miracles are wrought by the immediate power of God may be debated in light of some of the miracles found in the Bible. For example, in the miracle of the crossing of the Red Sea a natural force was used as a medium for the event.

The Bible describes it: Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea into dry land, and the waters were divided. So the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea on the dry ground, and the waters were a wall to them on their right hand and on their left. And the Egyptians pursued and went after them into the midst of the sea, all Pharaoh's horses, his chariots, and his horsemen.

Now it came to pass, in the morning watch, that the LORD looked down upon the army of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and cloud, and He troubled the army of the Egyptians. And He took off their chariot wheels, so that they drove them with difficulty; and the Egyptians said, "Let us flee from the face of Israel, for the LORD fights for them against the Egyptians."

Then the LORD said to Moses, "Stretch out your hand over the sea, that the waters may come back upon the Egyptians, on their chariots, and on their horsemen." And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and when the morning appeared, the sea returned to its full depth, while the Egyptians were fleeing into it.

So the LORD overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea.

(Exod. 14:21-27) In this episode, at Moses' signal God caused a powerful wind to blow, so powerful that it opened a path in the sea by creating a passageway bounded by a wall of water on both sides. God used a secondary cause, the medium of the wind, to effect the miracle, but the immediate cause was His divine command. It is one thing for such a wind to blow; it is another for it to blow in such a manner on command.

This type of miracle-by-command is seen also in the New Testament account of }esus' calming the sea and stilling the storm. It is not extraordinary for winds to stop blowing and seas to stop raging; that happens with regularity. Indeed, the sea's becoming suddenly calm is not so rare that this event in itself would be particularly noteworthy. The sea's becoming calm at the command of a human being would be extraordinary. We must admit, however, that such an event could take place by what we call sheer coincidence. We could fall into the informal fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc, after this, therefore because of this. The rooster may crow just before dawn, but simply because the appearance of the dawn follows in close proximity to the crowing of the rooster does not mean that the rooster causes the sun to rise.

If Jesus' only recorded miracle was the calming of the storm on command, we would legitimately be tempted to assume that the conjunction of events was sheer coincidence. But in the blaze of miracles that followed in the wake of Christ, we would be foolish to assume it was a coincidence. That was not the conclusion of the disciples who witnessed it; even these men who had witnessed other miracles by Jesus were astonished by this one. It followed the pattern of power on command reminiscent of God's calling the world into existence and of Jesus' calling Lazarus from the dead.

The debate among Christians over whether God performs miracles today centers on the narrow definition of miracle. We will consider that question, along with the question of satanic miracles, in the next chapter.