Keith Warrington: The Miracles in the Gospels

Keith Warrington, The Miracles in the Gospels: What Do They Teach Us about Jesus? (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2016), 274 pages, ISBN 9781619708327.

This text by an accomplished Pentecostal scholar provides the reader with an accessible and up-to-date treatment of Jesus’ miracles that is sufficiently apprised of the primary and secondary literature to keep advanced students and specialists interested. Moreover, Warrington provides an enjoyable read, and those familiar with his Pentecostal Theology will not likely be disappointed by his prose or content [Editor’s note: Read the full chapter “The Quest for a Pentecostal Theology” from Pentecostal Theology: A Theology of Encounter (2008)].

The first three chapters are introductory, with Warrington informing in chapter 1 (“Purpose, Structure, and Methodology”) that his methodology does not entail a historical-critical evaluation of the miracles under discussion (referring to others who do so in a large footnote), nor does he interact with the “psychotherapeutic” viewpoint, or evaluate Jesus vis-à-vis construed contemporary counterparts unless such comparison is necessary to his exposition. Warrington assumes Markan priority and takes a redactional stance but refreshingly “does not presume a creative exercise on the part of the authors that has resulted in historically suspect texts,” and also employs a narrative approach that understands the Gospels being “rooted in their social and historical contexts.” The four Gospels are similar and different, and the Evangelists are theologians and interpreters of their data or sources. Thus, Warrington provides a horizontal and vertical reading of the Gospels. He understands gospels genre and does not insalubriously confuse the Synoptic disagreements with errors by wrongly assessing them according to modern historiographic or bibliographic methods.

“Historical Context” (chapter 2) examines suffering, miracles, then Greco-Roman healing data, Jewish exorcism, and more. Modern psychologizing of exorcisms is incorrect: Jesus speaks to demons not victims. John ostensibly did not see exorcisms as necessary to his purpose, recording none. The Synoptics “point to Jesus’ authority and apparently do not provide “guidelines for exorcistic practice.” Thus, Warrington consistently moves away from much scholarship that sees the miracles as models for the church. Warrington also detaches from the legacy of form criticism that carried over to redaction criticism and beyond which finds the Sitz im Leben of the Gospels the surest guide to understanding their compositional intention: the miracle stories primarily and saliently apprise of Jesus, not the Church (but, e.g., note his sensitivity to initial audiences on p. 209). Modern scholars debate the definition of miracle, which Warrington says is “a supernatural action that transforms a previous dire and humanly insoluble situation …” Consistent with today’s miracle scholarship, Warrington notes that the Gospel writers do not hold that “God has broken his own laws; rather, he has achieved what is his right to do.” Warrington concludes that miracle reports are rare outside the Gospels, briefly mentioning Onias (Ḥoni the Circle Drawer) and Ḥanina ben Dosa regarding miracles and especially Asclepius for Greco-Roman healings. Quick attention is drawn the Old Testament’s “limited” appreciation of physicians as compared to Sirach 38’s positive view, which presents, says Warrington, a bleaker understanding of this role, as does the Mishnah regarding demon-possession in the Gospels. Warrington also recognizes the honor-shame culture of Luke’s time, noting that the synagogue ruler was rebuked by Jesus and became ashamed: not because he was remorseful but because he was dishonored in the eyes of the people, which jeopardized his status.

Greco-Roman healings largely involved “various gods or medical therapies” and provided dubious confidence to those inquirers; Jews saw suffering as God sent, with divine intervention sparsely granted. “The possibility of relief from suffering was thus relegated to the messianic era for which they longed but which did not appear close. Into this vacuum of uncertainty and helplessness came Jesus, manifesting an authority to help and transform beyond their wildest dreams” (16).

In “The Purpose of Jesus’ Miracles in the Gospels” (chapter 3), Warrington shows the prominence of miracles to the Gospels statistically: “In Matthew, 153 verses (out of 969) reflect miracle stories (15.79 per cent); in Mark, there are 196 verses (out of 643 – 30.48 percent); in Luke, 140 verses (out of 938 – 14.92 percent), and in John, 181 verses (out of 789 – 22.94 percent). In total, 670 out of 3,339 verses related to miracles of Jesus, 20.06 percent of the Gospel narratives” (17). Once again, as throughout his text, the primacy of Jesus as the reason for the Gospels is noted: “Although Heil is right to describe miracles of Jesus as being ‘multi-dimensional,’ the main reason for their inclusion in the Gospels is to teach the readers about Jesus. The writers present Jesus as someone who has no peer, the miracles being intended to result in the question being asked, ‘Who is this man?’, closely followed by the more spectacular question, ‘Is he God?’ Warrington would answer this last question in the affirmative.

Chapter 4 (“The Synoptics: Healings and Resurrections”) is by far the longest in the book, and only a very small sample of Warrington’s exegesis can be given. Warrington continues his emphasis that miracles primarily define Jesus’ identity and authority, for while compassion plays an occasional role in healings (cf. Mt 9:36), it is not mentioned in all healings, such as it is in the leper’s cure (Mt 8:1–4 // Mk 1:40–45 // Lk 5:12–16). The person and authority of Jesus are the most important reason for the miracles.

The handing of miracle accounts is consistent and may be summed up in about four parts. Warrington offers (1) a chart with the relevant literary contexts, (2) a general exegesis, (3) examines each Gospel under the heading “Messages from Matthew,” etc., pointing out things “uniquely” (a favorite word of Warrington) presented by the three Evangelists (sometimes Mark and Luke are examined together), and ends with (4) a conclusion. Warrington’s analysis of each Gospel when covering parallel accounts includes the authors’ phraseology, lexical features, verbal and grammatical exegesis, lots of interesting facts, cultural and physical background (e.g., the compositional description and function of Palestinian roofs [Mark’s account], and the likely Hellenistic adaptation of Luke, describing the removal of the “tiles” [keramōn]) by the men. Complex Greek arguments are not the staple of this text; frequent recourse to important words or phrases in the Greek is. And if something is happening for the first time or is outstanding, Warrington lets the reader know it—he is a gold mine of helpful facts that will interest scholar and pastor.

Again, while Warrington does not press sociological concerns, he does at times come to exegetical conclusions that reflect them. For example, Jesus did not tell the leper to go to the priest due to the need for public proof of the cure in accordance with Levitical law, or because of Jesus’ desire to prove to the priests his own law observance sympathies. Jesus is not interested in sacerdotal approval nor does he have any antagonistic motives regarding a given priest or priests: “It is more likely that Jesus was encouraging the leper to follow the protocols needed for him to be able legitimately to re-enter society” (41).

The important topic of sin and sickness is dealt with in the healing of the paralytic (Mt 9:1–8 par.) Warrington canvasses commentaries and Jewish ideas relating sin to sickness, but says, “However, none of the writers explicitly relates the paralysis to a specific sin and there is no unambiguous support for a connection made by Jesus that sickness is causes by the sufferer’s sin elsewhere in the Gospels” (66–67). This may be mildly overstated. Jesus’ response to the paralytic in John 5 ostensibly indicates that sin indeed was involved in the man’s sickness, although Warrington may be technically correct by using the word “unambiguous” to link the evidence. Yet the case for the two being connected in John 5 seems obvious and unavoidable. Warrington is likely correct to conclude: “It is not the apparent linkage between sin and sickness that is of importance here, but rather the recognition that Jesus has come to deal with both, and that he does so with authority and ease” (67).

Warrington notes that when Jesus laid hands on the woman in Luke 13:13, it is the only time he touches a woman in his Gospel. I was waiting to see Warrington’s take on Jesus touching a woman who had “a spirit.” His view ends up being very like my own: the woman was under a Satanic influence but was not demon-possessed. The Lukan (and Synoptic) evidence supports this understanding, as Warrington canvases Luke’s terminology and depictions of Jesus handling sick people and demonized people differently—Jesus never elsewhere touches the demon-possessed nor talks to the person but rather the demon.

Chapter 5, “The Synoptic Exorcisms,” connects Warrington’s previously mention that Satan has a kingdom and demons are in a contest with Jesus. This is a correct NT assessment. Warrington does not broach the idea of Judaism (and hence the NT via 2TJ) possibly borrowing ideas of demonology from Zoroastrianism. He focuses on the demons’ malevolence, their agenda being one with “eternal consequences, not merely restricted to the physical aspects of a person’s life” (149). Warrington’s examination of Jesus’ exorcisms is sane and allots decent space for a text of this size. He prefers to translate the Greek daimonizomai as “demonize” over “demon-possessed,” as the latter may wrongly infer that the demon is inside of a person, “which may or may not be the case.” This accords with my own morphing understanding of the phenomenon. In the important demon-possession (and this is one in the literal sense) of Gadara/Gerasa/Gadarene, Warrington alerts the reader regarding his ideas about the subject more broadly, as well as giving important conclusions relating specifically to it. Of interest is his interpretation of the Greek ti hēmin kai soi (Matthew) or ti emoi kai soi (Mark, Luke), that is, “What to us/me and to you?”, which is equivalent to “Mind your own business” or “Why are you interfering in our affairs?” Warrington concedes that malevolence and opposition are possible but thinks it more likely the demons are worried and surprised at Jesus’ arrival. His exegetical moves are consistently in keeping with his overarching understanding of Jesus and the miraculous: “The confrontation is one-sided, the authority of Jesus being stressed from the start” (151). Thus, Warrington disagrees with those scholars (e.g., Gundry, Mark, 1993; Twelftree, Gospel Perspectives, vol. 6, 1986) who see a pitched battle of sorts between Jesus and the demon. Rather, Warrington sees Jesus’ authority as the Son of God established in the story, so why should he, for instance, need to know the demon’s name to cast it out, after his supposed initial and ineffective effort to do so? If we understand Warrington here, he is saying that the Markan account plays out as it does so that the audience can know the severity of this possession, not because Jesus had to exert himself. Yet the facts in Mark’s Gospel still seem to suggest that the demons did not come out at Jesus’ first behest. We like Warrington’s understanding of this important theological matter and appreciate that Warrington reverently wrestles with the issues, but we are not fully persuaded he has proved his case here exegetically.

In this section, Warrington continues his excellent dissemination of valuable and interesting tidbits, noting that only in the Gadara/Gerasene demoniac and the exorcism in the synagogue (Mk 1:21–28 // Lk 4:31–37) does Jesus “engage a demon in conversation.” Warrington goes his own path and refreshingly allows for Matthean “doublets” to be discrete accounts (Mt 9:32–34).

Chapter 6 (“The Synoptics: Nature Miracles”) maintains Warrington’s emphasis on Jesus’ person and authority. Three miracles stories will illustrate this. First, when evaluating the literary/theological connection between the Calming of the Storm and the exorcism of the demoniac/s, despite the use of the word “rebuke” (Gr. epitimaō) to calm the storm and then to the legion of demons, Warrington concludes that we do not likely have a “demonically inspired storm” but simply two narratives that show obedience to Jesus. (Of course, the same conclusion could be reached if the storm was demonically inspired.) And the disciples were not necessarily in danger of drowning: “The one who had initiated the journey was capable of authoritatively ensuring that it was completed, storm or no storm.”

Second, in the Feeding of the 5,000, all Synoptics record Jesus went to a mountain with his disciples and John notes that a Passover was coming. Warrington ventures that Jesus perhaps wanted to spend some time apart from society in the possible “emotional upheaval” that may eventuate from the death of John the Baptist. He notes that this is the only place in the Gospels where the disciples try to advise Jesus. That Jesus in the Synoptic portrayal is “in control” is again emphasized. Warrington says that the twelve baskets recorded by each Evangelist more likely refers to the “eschatological messianic banquet” than indicating completion or plenty or having ties to the Last Supper, and he sees connections to Isaiah 40:3 and the wilderness restoration motif. Also, having resisted the satanic temptation to make bread in the wilderness, Jesus now does so in the will of God. This miracle story establishes Jesus’ authority as a prophet, yet there is more: providing bread is “an activity of God,” but Jesus is here the provider. Warrington informs that Luke’s unique literary arrangement of the feeding miracle, Jesus’ prediction of his suffering, and then the Transfiguration, is probably to “reflect on the identity of Jesus, linking him to God as provider but also the “suffering Messiah who also superlatively radiates divinity.” It suffices to say that in John “Jesus is supremely in charge throughout,” and the various details omitted by John make way for the miracle to “teach about the divine identity of the bread-giver.” And in the subsequent dialogue between Jesus and the Jews, the latter boast in Moses, but Jesus “does not replace Moses as the bread-giver but functions as God.” Finally, “The narrative thus reveals that it is Jesus who, as the bread of life, now takes the place of God in providing sustenance to the people” (203).

Third, in the Walking on the Water (Mt 14:22–33 // Mk 6:45–52 // Jn 6:16–21), “That Jesus walks on the water is reflected only in this narrative and is reminiscent of an action of God; Jesus functions as God did.” Warrington rightly points to texts like Psalm 107, where it is God who rescues sea travelers, and Psalm 89 where God has power over the sea. Matthew “unusually” extends his Markan source in this story, and he alone records Peter walking on the water: “On this occasion, Peter was the miracle; this was a miracle just for him, and for any other follower who is prepared to respond positively to Jesus’ commission, ‘Come.’” Warrington’s Pentecostalism, spelled out explicitly by him elsewhere, is here apparent. And while the miracles are not primarily models for disciples to follow, Warrington exhibits hermeneutical dexterity or variegation by allowing some mimicry to be intended in the texts. When discussing the reason Mark records that Jesus appeared to be passing by the disciples, we were glad that Warrington came to a decision that was in keeping with his own exegesis: Jesus was passing the disciples by because he fully intended them to make it to the other side of the lake on their own, consistent with his command for them to do so. When weighing options, Warrington is balanced. He allows for two miracles in John’s account—walking on the water and immediately reaching land, or only one: they reached the land so quickly because they were closer than they thought. In John, the narrative “breathes the innate divinity of Jesus, who, when on his own, easily functions as God did (metaphorically) as recorded in the OT” (211). We may refer to Warrington’s Christology as a divine one and not merely as a “high” one.

Again, refreshingly, Warrington finds implausible that Matthew and Mark are repeating a variation of the Feeding of the 5,000 in the telling of the Feeding of the 4,000. This is so due to literary grounds—the narratives are “too close” in these Gospels—and too different in verbiage and location: the first miracle story was to Jews and the second to Gentiles; thus, the latter have the “same opportunity” to benefit from Jesus’ ministry. The Feeding of the 4,000 is helpfully explored but gets short shrift. Perhaps this is due to Warrington’s longer exposition of the first multiplication miracle. He argues that the miracle’s recipients are Gentiles, but does not give much detail to back this (likely) assertion. While Warrington’s treatment of the Cursing of the Fig Tree is packed with useful information and conclusions, his lack of discussing the literary contexts in Matthew and Mark discretely and sufficiently from a theological point of view reduces the value of this miracle’s exposition. This miracle, too, gets short shrift.

Chapter 7, “John,” assigns a modest but well-used number of pages to the Fourth Gospel’s signs, and it is no surprise to the reader that Warrington sees the “Logos and his Incarnation” in unambiguous divine-Christological terms: Jesus is nothing less than “the miracle of God becoming a man.” In the Healing of the Crippled Man in John 5, Warrington accurately interprets John’s theology, identifying Jesus as being on equal terms with God. Warrington gives the reader more as he buttresses his point by weaving the sign into John’s narrative context, noting that Jesus will raise the dead, “a prerogative that normally belongs to God alone,” has God’s authority to judge (5:22), has God’s honor (5:23) and the authority to “grant eternal life” (5:24–29). To me this diminishes the likelihood that John used a “signs source”: the signs are part and parcel of his Gospel, of a piece theologically and narratively. Yes, a skillful redactor (or redactors) could do the same, but the evidence can certainly be read profitably and logically as the work of one hand who had personal access to the details of the Fourth Gospel.

This must do for an already long review, with some modest critiques and final comments made.

First, for those footnote-readers, on p. 12 n. 58, Warrington seems to assume that Saul’s encounter with a harassing spirit in 1 Sam 16:14–16 and elsewhere was demonic in nature. Certainly, Old Testament scholars debate the identity or nature of the rûaḥ rāʿâ that troubled Saul. We do not necessarily disagree with Warrington, but the point is not argued, and here was a good place for Warrington to put his ideas of demonic possession vs. the psychologizing model to good use. Second, when canvassing appraisals of physicians, Warrington places under the low view the account of Asa in 2 Chr. 16:12. Warrington should have mentioned that God’s primary problem with the king was probably not that he went to a physician but that his disease derived from covenant infidelity, and by going to a physician Asa skirted God and repentance. His position needed qualification.

Third, though Warrington correctly argues, in our view, that Jesus’ miracles initiated the kingdom of God and a new era, he does not explain how this is so. In other words, how are the miracles of Jesus different than those of Moses or the Old Testament Prophets? A more sophisticated—or at least developed—explanation Christologically, eschatologically, or perhaps in a salvation-historical manner was due here. Fourth, at times important controversies are not mentioned, notably the notions surrounding “power” in Luke’s Gospel, such as in 5:17, where “the power of the Lord was with him [Jesus] to heal.” The complex debate between R. Menzies and Max Weber over the use of pneuma and dunamis in Luke concerning miracle was not broached. Perhaps the reader could have at least been alerted to the issues in a note.

Fifth, one may question some of Warrington’s literary connections. For example, is the immediate and startling healing of the bent-over (“once-small woman”) in Luke 13:10–17 analogous to the inauspicious beginnings of the kingdom represented by the Parable of the Mustard Seed in 13:18–19? The association is provocative and possible but not inevitable. Her disabled and disfigured state doesn’t seem to transparently represent or parallel the kingdom’s start. Perhaps the story of Zacchaeus in 19:1–9 would have fit as well or better? Warrington then compares the woman’s 18-year infirmity to the use of eighteen people in the warning by Jesus in Luke 13:4. Perhaps judgment and reversal would serve better thematically than a kingdom-growth analogy. Sixth, an occasional mistake is made. For example, Warrington says (192 n. 12) that the Greek σεισμός is not used anywhere in the NT besides Matthew 8:24. In fact, it is used about fourteen times elsewhere. Maybe Warrington meant to say it is never used to describe a storm but only an earthquake, which is its consistent denotation in the NT. Seventh is a small pet peeve of the reviewer: Warrington repeatedly employs the now common but incorrect use of “begs the question” (e.g., 154) to mean something akin to “broaches” the question rather than its proper use: to assume as true what is yet to be proven. But we quibble.

This stimulating effort is the best recent production on the miracles of Jesus that the reviewer knows of, granting the field is a rather small one. Warrington’s insights, constant supply of supporting lexical and statistical data, identification of unique features in the various Gospels, fresh approach—though traditionally redactional—contextual exegesis, and high reverence for the text and recognition that the miracle stories and the Gospels themselves are primarily about Jesus while not ignoring or failing to interact with or at least recognize scholarship that disagrees with his stance makes this a quality work. Warrington’s text on the miracle stories of Jesus will hopefully prove seminal for future publications about Jesus’ miracles. Highly recommended.

Reviewed by David L. Ricci

 

Publisher’s page: http://www.hendrickson.com/html/product/708327.trade.html