Should Christians Expect Miracles Today? Objections and Answers from the Bible, Part 4, by Wayne A. Grudem
22. Doesn’t the Bible teach that the Holy Spirit will never call attention to Himself, but will always direct our attention to Christ? Then how can it be right to place so much emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit today?
This objection is based on trying to force a false alternative, one not supported by Scripture. Of course the Holy Spirit does glorify Jesus (John 16:14) and bear witness to Jesus (John 15:26; Acts 5:32; 1 John 2:3; 4:2). But this does not mean He does not make His own actions and words known. The Bible has hundreds of verses talking about the work of the Holy Spirit, making His work known, and Bible is itself spoken or inspired by the Holy Spirit. Matthew 28:19, “Make disciples …baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” suggests that the Holy Spirit is to be given equal honor with the Father and the Son in the Church.
Moreover, the Holy Spirit frequently made Himself known by some phenomenon or event that indicated His activity, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. This was true when the Holy Spirit came upon the 70 elders with Moses and they prophesied (Numbers 11:25-26), or when the Holy Spirit came upon the judges to enable them to do great works of power (Judges 14:6, 19; 15:14). People could see the effect of the Holy Spirit coming on someone in these cases. This was also true when the Holy Spirit came mightily upon Saul and he prophesied with a band of prophets (1 Samuel 10:6, 10), and it was frequently true when the Holy Spirit empowered the Old Testament prophets to give public prophecies.
The Holy Spirit also made Himself known or evident in a visible way when he descended as a dove on Jesus (John 1:32), or came as a sound of a rushing wind and with visible tongues of fire on the disciples at Pentecost (Acts 2:2-3). In addition, when people had the Holy Spirit poured out on them and began to speak in tongues or praise God in a remarkable and spontaneous way (see Acts 2:4; 10:44-46; 19:6), the Holy Spirit certainly made His presence known as well. And Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit within us would be so powerful He would be like a river of living water flowing out from our inmost beings (see John 7:39): Certainly that simile suggests a kind of presence people would be aware of, a presence that would somehow be perceptible.
It seems more accurate, therefore, to say that although the Holy Spirit does glorify Jesus, He also frequently calls attention to His work and gives recognizable evidences that make His presence known. Indeed, it seems that one of His primary purposes in the New Covenant Age is to manifest the presence of God, to give indication that make the presence of God known. And when the Holy Spirit works in various ways that can be perceived by believers and unbelievers, this encourages people’s faith that God is near and that He is working to fulfill His purposes in the Church and to bring blessing to His people.
23. How do we know that spiritual gifts today aren’t just demonic counterfeits designed to lead people astray?
Certainly false miracles are mentioned in the Bible—but when we examine them we find they are never worked by genuine believers. Pharaoh’s magicians were able to work some false miracles (Exodus 7:11, 22; 8:7), even though they soon had to admit that God’s power was greater (Exodus 8:19). Simon the sorcerer in the city of Samaria amazed people with his magic (Acts 8:9-11), even though the miracles done through Philip were much greater (Acts 8:13). In Philippi, Paul encountered a slave girl “who had a spirit of divination and brought her owners much gain by soothsaying” (Acts 16:16), but Paul rebuked the spirit and it came out of her (Acts 16:18).
We find further evidence in the Epistles. Paul says that when the man of sin comes it “will be with all power and with pretended signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are to perish” (2 Thessalonians 2:9-10), but those who follow them and are deceived do so “because they refused to love the truth and so be saved” (2 Thessalonians 2:10). This indicates that those who work false miracles in the end times by the power of Satan will not speak the truth but will preach a false gospel.
Finally, Revelation 13 indicates that a second beast will rise “out of the earth,” one that has “all the authority of the first beast” and “works great signs, even making fire come down from heaven to earth in the sight of men; and by the signs which it is allowed to work in the presence of the beast, it deceives those who dwell on the earth” (Revelation 13:11-14). But once again a false gospel accompanies these miracles. This power is exercised in connection with the first beast who utters “haughty and blasphemous words, …it opened its mouth to utter blasphemies against God, blaspheming his name and his dwelling” (Revelation 13:5-6).
Two conclusions become clear from this brief survey of false miracles in Scripture. (1) The power of God is greater than the power of Satan to work miraculous signs, and God’s people triumph in confrontations of power with those who work evil. In connection with this, John assures believers that “he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world” (1 John 4:4).53 (2) The identity of these workers of false miracles is always known through their denial of the gospel.
There is no indication anywhere in Scripture that genuine Christians with the Holy Spirit in them will work false miracles. In fact, in Corinth, a city filled with idolatry and demon worship (see 1 Corinthians 10:30), Paul could say to the Corinthian believers, many of whom had come out of that kind of pagan background, “no one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Corinthians 12:3). Here he gives them reassurance that those who make a genuine profession of faith in Jesus as Lord do in fact have the Holy Spirit in them. It is significant that he immediately proceeds to a discussion of spiritual gifts possessed by “each” true believer (1 Corinthian 12:7). And he could do this in a culture where the danger of demonic counterfeit was just as real as it is for us today.54
This should reassure us that if we see miracles being worked by those who make a genuine profession of faith (1 Corinthian 12:3), who believe in the incarnation and deity of Christ (1 John 4:2), and who show the fruit of the Holy Spirit in their lives and bear fruit in their ministry (Matthew 7:20; cf. John 15:5; Galatians 5:22-23), we should not be suspicious that they are false miracles only through those who were perfect in both doctrine and conduct of life, certainly no miracles would be worked until Christ’s return.
24. Doesn’t John’s Gospel show us that miracles lead to inferior faith and to the rejection of the gospel?
This objection is argued clearly by D. A. Carson, based on his understanding of several verses in John.55 I can respond to his argument with the following questions.
A. Did Jesus rebuke the official at Capernaum for seeking his son’s healing? In John 4:48, where Jesus says, “Unless you see signs and wonders you will not believe,”56 Carson calls this a “firm reproach”57 (his commentary calls it a “sweeping rebuke”).58
But there is certainly room to doubt whether this is any kind of reproach at all—there is no explicit indication of reproach in the context. John 4:53 shows that this “sign” (miracle) led to faith for the official: “He himself believed, and all his household.” John continues his theme of emphasizing the value of miracles (which he calls “signs”) in the next sentence. “This was now the second sign that Jesus did when he had come from Judea to Galilee” (John 4:54).59
B. Did Jesus’ miracles lead to inferior faith? In John 10:37-38, Jesus says, “If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”60 Carson says of this passage that Jesus sees faith that is based on miracles “as of inferior quality, but certainly better than unbelief.”61
C. Did Jesus’ miracles lead to spurious faith? Carson says, “Not all faith triggered by Jesus’ signs proves valid: some of it is spurious ([John] 2:23-25; cf. 8:30-31).”62
But the verses Carson Cites do not prove that the faith of some people who believed was “spurious.” John 2:23 simply says, “Many believed in his name when they say the signs which he did”—the verse says nothing about “spurious” faith.63 Similarly, John 8:30 says, “As he spoke thus, many believed in him.” It says nothing about signs and wonders in this passage, nor does it say anything about people having spurious faith as a result of signs and wonders. I fail to understand how Carson can use these two passages—neither of which says anyone had spurious faith, and both of which report many believed in Christ—to say some people have spurious faith triggered by signs and wonders. The passages do not prove that.
D. Did raising Lazarus lead to rejection and anger? In John 11-12, regarding raising Lazarus from the dead, Carson notes that some religious leaders became angry as a result of this miracle. “The religious leaders are convinced that Jesus is actually performing miracles whose reality they cannot deny, but that does not foster faith: rather it fuels their rejection and anger.”64
At this point I agree with Carson, that the miracles performed by Jesus led to rejection and anger in the religious leaders. However, I differ with any suggestion that John is warning us against miracles in the story of Lazarus. It is true that the religious leaders became more hostile, but that simply makes their unbelief more culpable. In the very context of John 11, John is showing that because of Jesus’ miracles many people “believed in him” (John 11:45; cf. 12:10-11). The miracles should have led to faith for the Pharisees as well, but instead they became more hostile in their hardness of heart. John does not use this fact to show the harmful effect of miracles, but rather the amazingly hard hearts of the Pharisees.
The contemporary application should be clear. Miracles will always engender faith in some and hostile opposition in others—especially religious leaders who are jealous because of their loss of power and influence when genuine miracles are occurring and people are coming to faith outside of their influence.
E. Did Jesus give a negative evaluation to Thomas’s faith because Thomas saw Jesus after His resurrection? Finally, Carson mentions the time when Thomas saw Jesus after His resurrection and then believed in Him. Carson’s conclusion is that “the same relatively negative evaluation is given” to the value of seeing the miracle of the Resurrection, showing the superiority of faith that does not rest on miracles. Carson says, “Better than the kind of faith that insists on seeing Jesus’ signs first hand is the faith that rests on the reports of the unique signs of Jesus (John 20:29-31).”65
But I do not think he has reasoned correctly from the redemptive-historical context of the verse. The contrast in the passage is not between seeing miracles and not seeing miracles. Rather, the contrast is between seeing Jesus in the flesh and not seeing Jesus in the flesh. Jesus does not say, “Have you believed because you have seen a miracle? Blessed are those who have not seen a miracle and yet believed.” Rather, Jesus says, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe” (John 20:29). There is a redemptive-historical reason for this: Jesus is ascending to heaven, and will no longer be on earth to be seen. The passage does not at all imply that miracles will cease, but that Jesus will be absent.
Any other conclusion than this not only is contrary to the words in the verse itself, but also to the larger context of the lives of the apostles in the Early Church. If those who saw Jesus with their own eyes had inferior faith, then the apostles and all other eyewitnesses of the Resurrection would have inferior faith! Surely this is incorrect. Moreover, it would mean all those who believed as a result of the signs and wonders done frequently by the apostles, and especially by Paul throughout his ministry, would have inferior faith—almost the entire first-century Church would have inferior faith! That is hardly the point of any passage in Acts, nor is there any hint of that kind of reasoning in either the Gospels or Acts.
When Carson speaks of “the same relatively negative evaluation”66 given to the role of miracles in encouraging faith, his conclusion is inconsistent with the fact that it is God Himself who does these miracles. “While God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his own will” (Hebrews 2:4). Should it not give us pause to place a “negative evaluation” on what God Himself does to bear witness to the truth of His Word?
F. Important verses in John not mentioned by Carson. Finally, several more positive verses about miracles in John are not mentioned by Carson. At the bottom of page 100 (Power Religion) Carson has one brief sentence indicating that “Jesus’ signs display His glory, at least to His disciples (John 2:11)”; and in the middle of page 101 he has a concessive sentence in which he admits that “some do believe because they see Jesus’ works (e.g. 11:45)”67 But these two sentences are tossed off in passing, while his overall picture is that John views signs in a negative way.
Why does Carson entirely omit consideration of many other passages that view signs very positively in John’s Gospel? This theme runs through the whole Gospel, beginning at John 2:11 when Jesus has changed the water to wine. “This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in him.” This theme continues to the end of the Gospel where John says, “Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples” (John 20:30), which he did not record, but he did record these in order that people might believe. “But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31). From beginning to end, this Gospel shows people coming to faith because of the signs they see Jesus do.
Carson fails to mention the verses in which John shows time and again how the miraculous signs Jesus did brought about faith in those who saw these signs. For example, “When he was in Jerusalem at the Passover feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs which he did” (John 2:23, a verse Carson surprisingly uses to speak of spurious faith. In the next chapter, Nicodemus comes and says, “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 3:2). The reader could hardly miss the point John is trying to make: John wants his readers to draw the same conclusions from these signs that Nicodemus has drawn.
When Jesus healed the official’s son, “He himself believed, and all his household. This was now the second sign that Jesus did” (John 4:53-54).
Later, John says, “a multitude followed him, because they say the signs which he did on those who were diseased” (John 6:2). John’s point is certainly that he wants his readers likewise to follow Jesus. Similarly, “When the people saw the sign which he had done, they said, ‘This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world!'” (John 6:14). John wants his readers to draw the same conclusion.
Similarly, at the feast of Tabernacles, “Many of the people believed in him; they said, ‘When the Christ appears, will he do more signs than this man had done?'” (John 7:31). John even reports a division among the Pharisees, when some of them begin to say, “How can a man who is a sinner do such signs?” (John 9:16).
The Pharisees are troubled, because they are forced to admit, “This man performs many signs” (John 11:47), and they realize that if He continues to do miracles in this way, soon everyone will follow Jesus. “If we let him go on thus, every one will believe in him” (John 11:48). Once again, John is showing the extremely positive role that Jesus’ miracles (or signs) had in engendering faith in those who saw Him.
When Jesus raised Lazarus, many came to faith. “On account of him many of the Jews were going away and believing in Jesus,” (John 12:11). At the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, “The reason why the crowd went to meet him was that they heard he had done this sign” (John 12:18, but the Pharisees were dismayed, saying to one another, “You see that you can do nothing; look, the world has gone after him” (John 12:19).
It would be hard for John to be any more explicit in showing that the amazing signs Jesus did brought great multitudes of people to follow Him and believe in Him. Nonetheless, John continues to remind us that the Pharisees remain hostile in their unbelief, and are all the more culpable for that unbelief because they had seen these very miracles. “Though he had done so many signs before them, yet they did not believe in him” (John 12:37).
Finally, after the entire Gospel has shown how Jesus’ miracles brought about faith in Him, John tells us that he recorded these “signs” for a specific purpose. “That you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31). The overwhelming evaluation of the role of signs regarding faith in John’s Gospel is a positive one, not a negative one, and I am surprised that Carson’s evaluation does not represent it that way, but ignores so much of the data that is there.
25. Isn’t it wrong to place emphasis on present miracles? In the Bible, when “signs” and “wonders” are mentioned, it is usually in the context of calling people to look back to God’s great works in the past, such as the Exodus or the resurrection of Christ. We should call people to remember those past great “signs,” not to trust God for present “signs and wonders” today.
This objection has been stated well by D. A. Carson and James Montgomery Boice, following an argument by John Woodhouszse, an Australian scholar. Carson places such emphasis on believing past miracles that he calls into question the value of present miracles to encourage faith. He says one of the major purposes of signs and wonders in Scripture is “to call the people of God back to those foundation events, to encourage them to remember God’s saving acts in history.”68 Regarding Old Testament signs and wonders, he says, “Unbelief in Israel is nothing other than the reprehensible forgetting of all the wonders God performed at the Exodus.” And in the Gospel of John, “John’s readers are called to reflect on the signs that he reports …especially Jesus’ resurrection, and thereby believe. The mandate to believe here rests on John’s reports of God’s past, redemptive-historical signs, not on testimonies of present on-going ones.”69
Boice argues in a similar way, quoting with approval the following statement of John Woodhouse:
Faith involves remembering the signs and wonders by which God redeemed His people …unbelief is precisely a failure to remember those wonders …a consequence of this is the fact that a desire for further signs and wonders is sinful and unbelieving.70 But if it is sinful and unbelieving to have “a desire for further signs and wonders” after the death and resurrection of Christ, then it is hard to explain the activity of the Early Church. (1) The Christians in Jerusalem prayed that God would give them the ability to speak the Word with all boldness and that while they spoke, God would stretch out His hand “to heal,” and that “signs and wonders” would be performed “through the name of your holy servant Jesus” (Acts 4:30). They certainly demonstrated an eager desire for further signs and wonders. Was their desire for “further signs and wonders” after the Resurrection “sinful and unbelieving?” (2) Similarly, the ministry of Peter and Paul in the New Testament was characterized by miraculous deeds. Shall we say that Peter and Paul were “sinful and unbelieving” in their prayers for further miracles after the Resurrection? (3) In addition, people in the church of Corinth and in other churches who had gifts of miracles and healing and prophecy (Romans 12:6, 1 Corinthians 12:7-11, 28-30; 14:1-40; Galatians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 5:20; Hebrews 2:4) certainly were right to desire (zeloo “desire, exert oneself earnestly [for],” 1 Corinthians 12:31; 14:1) that those gifts be operative in the life of the Church.
Boice and Woodhouse have adopted an incorrect line of reasoning. Because we are to remember God’s great redemptive deeds in the past should not discourage us from praying for miraculous events to occur today, but rather should encourage us to pray that God would still work in miraculous ways today. This is exactly the point of James 5:16-18: “Elijah was a man of like nature with ourselves” and then encourages us to pray with the same kind of faith that Elijah had, reminding us that “the prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.” This is specifically set in a context of prayer for healing (James 5:14-16).
So I fail to see the force of Carson’s argument, if it is intended to discourage the use of signs and wonders today. He is just saying that biblical reports of the past are to be believed as reports of the past. But any implication that we should discourage present signs and wonders is setting up a false alternative. When Carson says that in John, “The mandate to believe here rests on John’s reports of God’s past, redemptive-historical signs, not on testimonies of present on-going ones,”71 this is because John is writing a Gospel—a story of what happened in Jesus’ life. Of course, he does not present any people who come to faith after Jesus returned to heaven, because John’s Gospel ends at that point. To find people who come to believe because of miracles that occur after the life of Jesus, we should not search the Gospel of John. For that we need to look to Acts and the Epistles—and they do show present, ongoing miracles in connection with proclamation of the gospel.
26. Weren’t miracles in the Bible always successful, instantaneous, and irreversible? If Jesus were here today, He would be emptying hospitals by healing everyone in them. The miracles claimed today are nothing like the miracles in the Bible.
This objection has recently been expressed well by Norman Geisler72 Geisler first formulates a much more restrictive definition of “miracle” than is usually found in discussions of miracles,73 and then he uses that definition to argue against the possibility of contemporary miracles. Geisler says, “miracles (1) are always successful, (2) are immediate, (3) have no relapses, and (4) give confirmation of God’s messenger” (pp. 28-30, Signs and Wonders). He finds support for this thesis largely in the ministry of Jesus, but when he passes beyond the life of Jesus and attempts to show that others who had the power to work miracles were never unsuccessful, his thesis is much less convincing. Regarding the demon-possessed boy, whom the disciples could not set free from the demon (Matthew 17:14-21), Geisler says, “the disciples simply forgot for the moment to faithfully exercise the power that Jesus had already given them.”74
But this is an unpersuasive argument. Geisler says that the power to work miracles was always successful, and when the Bible talks about some who were not successful (and who contradict his thesis) he simply says they “forgot.” Jesus, however, gives a different reason than Geisler does. “Because of your little faith” (Matthew 17:20). Lesser faith resulted in lesser power to work miracles.
Geisler’s description of miracles does not fit the case of the blind man of Bethsaida upon whom Jesus laid His hands. At first, the man did not see clearly but said he saw men who “look like trees, walking.” After Jesus laid His hands on him a second time, the man “saw everything clearly” (Mark 8:24-25). Geisler responds that it was Jesus’ intention to heal in two stages, in order to teach the disciples by using an object lesson about the gradual growth of their spiritual lives (pp. 153-154). Though the text says nothing to this effect, it may have been true. Even so, it disproves Geisler’s thesis, for if it was Jesus’ intention to heal in two stages then, it may also be His intention to heal people in two stages—or in three or four or more stages. Once Geisler admits that it may be God’s intention to work a miracle in stages, in order to accomplish His own purposes, then Geisler’s entire claim that miracles must be immediate and complete is lost.75
Instead of accepting Geisler’s definition, it seems better to conclude that even those whom God gifts with the ability to perform miracles from time to time may not be able to perform them whenever they wish, for the Holy Spirit continually is distributing them to each person “as he wills” (1 Corinthians 12:11; the word “distributes” is a present participle in Greek, indicating a continuing activity of the Holy Spirit).
Moreover, there seems no reason to exclude (as Geisler apparently wants to do) unusual or remarkable answers to prayer from the category of “miracle,” thus making the definition extremely restrictive. If God answers persistent prayer, for instance, for a physical healing for which there is no known medical explanation, and does so only after several months or years of prayer, yet does so in such a way that it seems quite clearly to be in response to prayer so that people are amazed and glorify God, there seems no reason to deny that a miracle has occurred simply because the earlier prayers were not answered immediately. Finally, Geisler fails to recognize that several New Testament texts indicate that spiritual gifts, whether miraculous or nonmiraculous in nature, may vary in strength or degree of intensity.
Paul says that if we have the gift of prophecy, we should use it “in proportion to our faith” (Romans 12:6), indicating that the gift can be more or less strongly developed in different people, or in the same person over a period of time. This is why Paul can remind Timothy, “Do not neglect the gift you have” (1 Timothy 4:14), and can say, “I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you” (2 Timothy 1:6).
It was possible for Timothy to allow his gift to weaken apparently through infrequent use, and Paul reminds him to stir it up by using it and thereby strengthening it. This should not be surprising, for we realize it to be true in regard to a wide variety of gifts that increase in strength and effectiveness as they are used, whether evangelism, teaching, encouraging, administration, or faith. Apollos had a strong gift of preaching and teaching, for we read that he was “mighty (or “powerful,” Greek dunatos) in the Scriptures” (Acts 18:24), NASB). And paul apparently had a frequently used and effective gift of speaking in tongues because he says, “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all” (1 Corinthians 14:18).76
All of these texts indicate that spiritual gifts may vary in strength. If we think of any gift, whether teaching or evangelism on the one hand, or prophecy or healing on the other, we should realize that within any congregation there will likely be people who are strong in the use of that gift, perhaps through long use and experience. As well, there will be others who are moderately strong in that gift, and others who probably have the gift but are just beginning to use it or have simply been given less effectiveness in its use through the sovereign distribution of the Holy Spirit.
27. Isn’t it really impossible to define a miracle anyway? And if we can’t define a miracle, how can we know what one is—and why do we spend so much time talking about something we can’t even explain precisely?
I admit that philosophers have argued for a long time about what a miracle is. But many of them have started off on the wrong path because they assumed God was distant and not usually involved in the world. They assumed the world just operated “automatically” apart from God, by some rules they called “natural laws.”
If we start instead with the idea that Christ “continually carries along all things by his word of power” (Colossians 1:17), and that God “accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will” (Ephesians 1:11), then we will have a much more accurate picture of God’s continual involvement in everything that happens in the world. Then a definition more consistent with biblical pattern would be the following:
A miracle is a less common kind of God’s activity in which He arouses people’s awe and wonder and bears witness to Himself.77 This definition is based on an understanding of God’s providence whereby God is continually involved in preserving, controlling, and governing all things.78 If we understand providence in this way, we will naturally avoid some other common explanations or definitions of miracles.
For example, one definition of miracle is “a direct intervention of God in the world.” But this definition assumes a deistic view of God’s relationship to the world, in which the world continues on its own and God only intervenes in it occasionally. This is certainly not the biblical view, according to which God makes the rain to fall (Matthew 5:45), causes the grass to grow (Psalm 104:14) and continually carries along all things by His word of power (Hebrews 1:3).
Another definition of miracle is “a more direct activity of God in the world.” But to talk about a “more direct” working of God suggests that His ordinary providential activity is somehow not “direct,” and again hints at a sort of deistic removal of God from the world.
Yet another definition of miracle is “an exception to a natural law” or “God acting contrary to the laws of nature.” But the phrase “laws of nature” in popular understanding implies that certain qualities are inherent in the things that exist, “laws of nature” that operate independently of God. Further, “laws of nature” implies that God must intervene or “break” these laws in order for a miracle to occur. Once again, this definition does not adequately account for the biblical teaching on providence.
Another definition of miracle is “an event impossible to explain by natural causes.” This definition is inadequate because: (1) it does not include God as the one who brings about the miracle; (2) it assumes God does not use some natural cases when He works in an unusual or amazing way, and thus it assumes again that God only occasionally intervenes in the world; and (3) it will result in a significant minimizing of actual miracles, and an increase in skepticism. This is so because when God works in answer to prayer, the result is often amazing to those who prayed, but it is not absolutely impossible to explain by natural causes, especially for a skeptic who simply refuses to see God’s hand at work.
Therefore, the original definition given above, where a miracle is simply a less common way of God’s working in the world, seems to be preferable and more consistent with the biblical doctrine of God’s providence. This definition does not say a miracle is a different kind of working by God, but only that it is a less common way of God’s working, and it is done to arouse people’s surprise, awe or amazement in such a way that God bears witness to Himself.79
Now, if we accept the definition that a miracle is “a less common kind of God’s activity in which He arouses people’s awe and wonder and bears witness to Himself,” then we may ask what kinds of things should be considered miracles. Of course, we are right to consider the incarnation of Jesus as God-man, and Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, as the central and most important miracles in all history. The events of the Exodus, such as the parting of the Red Sea and the fall of Jericho were remarkable miracles. When Jesus healed people, cleansed lepers, and cast out demons, those were certainly miracles as well (see Matthew 11:4-5; Luke 4:36-41; John 2:23; 4:54; 6:2; 20:30, 31).
In the New Testament, the release of Peter from prison in answer to the prayers of the Church was certainly a miracle (Acts 12:5-17; note also Paul’s prayer for Publius’s father in Acts 28:8). But there must have been many miracles not nearly as dramatic as those, because Jesus healed many hundreds of people “any that were sick with various diseases” (Luke 4:40). Paul healed “the rest of the people on the island who had diseases” (Acts 28:9).
On the other hand, Christians see answers to prayer every day, and we should not water down our definition of miracle so much that every answer to prayer is called a miracle. But when an answer to prayer is so remarkable that people involved in it are amazed and acknowledge God’s power at work in an unusual way, then it seems appropriate to call it a miracle.80 This is consistent with our definition, and seems supported by the biblical evidence that works of God that aroused people’s awe and wonder were called miracles (Greek dunamis).81
But whether we adopt a broad or narrow definition of miracle, all should agree that if God really does work in answer to our prayers, whether in common or uncommon ways, it is important that we recognize this and give thanks to Him. As well, we should not ignore the answered prayer or go to great lengths to devise possible “natural causes” to explain away what God has in fact done. Although we must be careful not to exaggerate in reporting details of answers to prayer, we must also avoid the opposite error of failing to glorify and thank God what He has done.
28. Isn’t it dangerous for churches to allow for miraculous spiritual gifts today?
To say that the use of many spiritual gifts today is “dangerous” is not an adequate criticism, because some things that are right are dangerous, at least in some sense. Missionary work is dangerous. Driving a car is dangerous. If we define “dangerous” to mean “something might go wrong,” then we can criticize anything that anybody might do as “dangerous,” and it just becomes an all-purpose criticism when we have no specific abuse to point to.
A better approach regarding the use of miracles and spiritual gifts is to ask, Is it in accordance with Scripture? and Have adequate steps been taken to guard against the dangers of abuse? I think that many responsible charismatic leaders have taken considerable care, using extensive teaching and writing, to guard against abuse and avoid the mistakes of previous generations; both the mistakes involved in abusing the gifts, and the mistake of forbidding some gifts altogether.82
PR
Notes
53. Some may object that one exception to this may be the vision of the end times in Revelation 13:7, where the beast “was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them.” But even here these is no indication that the miraculous powers of the beast are greater than the power of the Holy Spirit. This seems to be best understood not as a confrontations of miraculous power but simply as a persecution by military force, for we read later of “those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands” (Revelation 20:4).
54. The fact that people who name the name of Christ are able to prophesy and cast out demons and do “many mighty works” in His name (Matthew 7:21-23) does not contradict his, because these are non-Christians. Jesus says to them, “I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers” (Matthew 7:23). Although it is possible that these are false miracles worked by demonic power, it seems more likely that they are operations of common grace God works through non-Christians, similar to the effectiveness of the gospel God sometimes allows when it is preached by those who have impure motives and do not know Christ in their hearts (cf. Philippians 1:15-18).
55. D. A. Carson, in Horton, ed, Power Religion, p. 101.
56. Although Jesus is speaking specifically to the official (“Jesus therefore said to him“), the Greek test shows that He uses a plural verb to speak of the Galileans generally (“Unless you (plural) see signs and wonders you (plural) will not believe”).
57. Carson in Horton, ed., Power Religion, p.101
58. Carson, in Horton, ed., Power Religion, p. 101; id., The Gospel According to John (Leicester, England: InterVarsity, and Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), p. 238.
59. In order to support the idea that “the welcome the Galileans accorded Jesus was fundamentally flawed, based as it was on too great a focus on miraculous signs” Dr. Carson’s commentary (The Gospel According to John, p. 238) mentions verse 45 (“So when he came to Galilee, the Galileans welcomed him, having seen all that he had done in Jerusalem at the feast, for they too had gone to the feast”). But this verse talks only about the welcome of the Galileans, and does not mention faith, whether strong or spurious. A more likely interpretation is that many who saw Jesus’ miracles were pondering the miracles and gradually growing in their positive assessment of Him, and that day after day more were coming to believe in Him. Their welcome was simply a welcome, as the text says, and no generalization about the nature of their faith at that point should be drawn from it. Carson’s commentary (p. 238) also mentions John 2:23-25, but I doubt that “inadequate faith” is indicated here. It simply says that when people saw the signs He did “many believed in his name“—the same expression used in John 3:18 to refer to saving faith. The fact that Jesus “did not trust himself to them” (John 2:24) simply refers to the fact that He did not yet fully disclose His Messiahship and deity to them, not that their faith was inadequate. I doubt that the fact that people “believed in his name” can be made to say that people did not believe in His name. If John had wanted his readers to be warned to these stories of people coming to faith because of miracles, he would not have portrayed the results so positively.
60. Here the word “sign” (sêmeion) is not used and “work” (ergon) is found instead, but I agree the reference is primarily to Jesus’ miracles; cf. K. H. Rengstorf, “sêmeion,” TDNT, vol. 7, pp. 247-248: “Most of the 27 erga [‘works’] passages in John are clearly related to the sêmeia [‘signs’] of Jesus …Furthermore they …establish a close connection between the erga [‘works’] of Jesus as sêmeia [‘signs’] and the work of God effected in erga [‘works’] …When Johannine Jesus Himself refers to what John calls sêmeion [‘signs’] He consistently uses the word ergon [‘work’].”
61. Horton, Power Religion, p. 101.
62. Ibid.
63. John 2:24 likewise says nothing about their faith being spurious but simply suggests that many who believed were not yet capable of understanding and committing themselves to Jesus’ full messianic mission (John 6:14-15, 60-70). This does not demonstrate that their faith was spurious of false.
64. Carson in Horton, ed., Power Religion, p. 101.
65. Ibid.
66. Ibid.
67. Ibid., pp. 100, 101.
68. Ibid., p. 92.
69. Ibid., p. 93.
70. Ibid., pp. 125-126, emphasis mine.
71. Ibid., p. 93.
72. Norman Geisler, Signs and Wonders.
73. I would define a miracle as follows: A miracle is a less common kind of God’s activity in which He arouses people’s awe and wonder and bears witness to Himself. (See the next question [27] for further discussion of this definition, and other common definitions.)
74. Geisler, Signs and Wonders, p. 150.
75. Geisler also has much difficulty explaining Mark 5:8 (where Jesus more than once commanded some demons to leave) and Mark 6:5 (where the text says that Jesus was not able to do any miracles in Nazareth because of their unbelief); see Geisler, Signs and Wonders, pp. 149, 152.
76. See also 1 Corinthians 13:1-3 where Paul gives examples of some gifts developed to the highest imaginable degree, examples he uses to show that even such gifts without love would bring no benefit.
77. The present participle of phero, “bear, carry” gives the sense of continual activity.
78. For further discussion of God’s providence, see Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introductory Course in the Doctrinal Teachings of the Whole Bible (Leicester, England: InterVarsity, and Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), chap. 16.
79. A study of the biblical terminology for miracles frequently points to this idea of God’s power at work to arouse people’s wonder and amazement. Primarily three sets of terms are employed: (1) “sign” (Hebrew ‘ôt, Greek semeion), which means something that points to or indicates something else, especially (with reference to miracles) God’s activity and power; (2) “wonder” (Hebrew môpet, Greek teras), an event that causes people to be amazed or astonished; and (3) “miracle” or “mighty work” (Hebrew gebûrah, Greek dunamis), an act displaying great power, especially (with reference to miracles) divine power.
Often “signs and wonders” is used as a stock expression to refer to miracles (Exodus 7:3; Deuteronomy 6:22; Psalm 135:9; Acts 4:30; 5:12; Romans 15:19, etc.) and sometimes all three terms are combined, “mighty works and signs and wonders” (Acts 2:22) or “signs and wonders and miracles” (2 Corinthians 12:12, Hebrews 2:4).
In addition to the meanings of the terms used for miracles, another reason for supporting our definition is that miracles in Scripture do arouse people’s awe and amazement and indicate that God’s power is at work. The Bible frequently tells us that God Himself is the one who performs “miracles” or “wondrous things.” Psalm 136:4 says that God is the one “who alone does great wonders” (cf. Psalm 72:18). The Song of Moses declares, “Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods? Who is like you, majestic in holiness, in glorious deeds, doing wonders?” (Exodus 15:11). Thus, the miraculous signs Moses did when his staff turned into a snake and back again, or when his hand became leprous and then clean again (Exodus 4:2-8) were given in order that Moses might demonstrate to the people of Israel that God had sent him. Similarly, signs God did by the hand of Moses and Aaron through the plagues, far surpassing the false miracles or imitation signs done by the magicians in Pharaoh’s court (Exodus 7:12, 8:18, 8:19; 9:11), showed that the people of Israel were those who worshiped the one true God. When Elijah confronted the priests of Baal on Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18:17-40), the fire from heaven demonstrated that the Lord was the one true God.
80. Others may prefer to be more restrictive in their definition of miracles, reserving the term (for example) for events that absolutely could not have happened by ordinary means, and that are thoroughly witnessed and documented by several impartial observers. In that case, they will see far fewer miracles, especially in a skeptical, antisupernatural society. But such a definition may not encompass all the kinds of things Paul had in mind when he talked about the miracles in the churches of Corinth (1 Corinthians 12:10, 28, 29) and Galatia (Galatians 3:5), and may prevent people from recognizing a gifts of miracles when it is given to Christians today. (Of course, Christians who hold such a restrictive definition will still readily thank God for many answers to prayer that they would not call miracles).
81. The appropriateness of such a definition is not lost simply because the same event might be called a miracle by some people and an ordinary event by others, for people’s evaluation of an event will vary, depending on their nearness to the event, the assumptions of their worldview and whether or not they are Christians.
82. Throughout this series, sections of questions 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 22, 26, and 27 were taken from Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introductory Course in the Doctrinal Teachings of the Whole Bible (Leicester, England: InterVarsity, and Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), and are used by permission. Sections of questions 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 were taken from Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, and are used by permission.
Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are taken from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible. ©Copyright 1946, 1952, and 1971 by the Division of Christian Education of National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA.
Used by permission.
Quotations from the KJV—King James Version are public domain.
This four-part series is taken from Gary S. Greig and Kevin N. Springer, eds., The Kingdom and the Power: Are Healing and the Spiritual Gifts Used by Jesus and the Early Church Meant for the Church Today? A Biblical Look at How to Bring the Gospel to the World with Power (Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1993). Used with permission.
