The Necessity of Miracles

Hover over the references to see the Biblical text

"Today I am healed [of the epilepsy I had from childhood] and I thank God for his miracles to me. Seven of my friends received Jesus Christ because of my testimony. Now, I teach the local trade language to these friends, so they can evangelize others."1


Apologetics are a passion of a number of Christians I know, but it seems to me like a poor substitute for a better (and, I feel, a more Biblical) methodology of evangelism. While knowledge may be preferable to gold (Proverbs 8:10) and the hatred of it indicative of fools (Proverbs 1:22, Proverbs 1:29), it is not a sure foundation for faith. I'm not saying apologetics are without merit, but I think we latch onto them as a substitute for evidence of God's power—and the latter, not the former, is preferable.

When Paul described his preaching to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 2:1-5), he wrote, "I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom." His message was simply "Jesus Christ and him crucified." Instead of aiming for "wise and persuasive words," Paul focused on making sure there was "a demonstration of the Spirit’s power," and he did this with the explicit intention that the faith of the new believers would not "rest on human wisdom," but would rest "on God’s power" instead.

The practice of emphasizing signs and wonders was, in fact, Paul's normal approach to evangelism. In Romans 15:18-19, he said he had fulfilled2 the ministry of the gospel, a broader claim than just saying he had preached the message. Although he mentions both word and deed in verse 18, he follows this immediately by emphasizing the deeds: "by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God" (ESV). The result is that while Paul says he both preached and demonstrated the message, his emphasis is on the miracles. For Paul, it seems miracles were necessary to the gospel presentation: without them, his evangelism would not have been complete.

Of course, it is not just Paul who emphasizes the value of miracles. Jesus also does this. When the Jews want to stone him, he points to his miracles as the reason to believe he is one with the Father (John 10:37-38). Later on, he urges Philip to draw the same conclusion for the same reason (John 14:11). In fact, John reports that the very reason he records the miracles is so the the reader might believe on account of them (John 20:31). In Matthew 9:6, Jesus presents a miracle as evidence that he can forgive sin. In Matthew 11:20-24, he denounces the towns in which most of his miracles had been performed because they did not respond with repentance.

Things get a little confusing when Jesus decries the demand for a sign (Matthew 12:38-42, Mark 8:12, and Luke 11:29), but that is in the context of people who are actively disbelieving: "Why does this generation ask for a sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to it." Those people don't just have doubts, they've already concluded Jesus is not from God and are flaunting that conclusion by demanding he prove them wrong. By contrast, in John 4:48 when Jesus says, "Unless you people see signs and wonders, you will never believe,” his point seems to be that we need miracles to help us understand who he is. He makes that statement in response to a desperate father's plea for help, and rather than saying "no sign will be given to you," as he did to the unbelieving group, he responds answering the man's request and heals the child. If his statement to the man had been derogatory, he surely would not have performed the subsequent miracle.

Peter too saw the importance of miracles. After healing the paralytic at one of the entrances to the temple in Jerusalem, he says to the Jews there, "Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know" (Acts 2:22).

Again, we can say Jesus was an exception, which is true in regard to his divinity. It does not hold true, however, in regard to the role of signs and wonders. Paul wrote that he had persisted in demonstrating "the marks of a true apostle, including signs, wonders and miracles" (2 Corinthians 12:12), so miracles "marked" apostles.

It is clear that miracles in the New Testament were expected to illicit a response of faith, and that they were a primary tool to that end. Should we not seek to do what our savior modeled and the early church copied? If Jesus saw miracles as a progenitor of faith, if Peter saw them as God's attestation, if Paul saw them as necessary for a solid foundation in faith, do we really think we can do better with just our words, with mere reasoned defenses? Are we so great that we abandon the absolute dependence on God that miracles require and rely instead on our human wisdom, eloquence, and persuasive words?

Do we have any recourse other than to pray, perhaps to repent and fast, and to entreat the Father to anoint us with the Holy Spirit and with Power so that we can go around doing good and healing all who are under the power of the devil? And until that power comes, what can we do but be obedient to the example we've been given and imitate what we can, even if it lays bare our impotence. We have no other option. How can we preach a kingdom we do not know? How can we represent a master we do not emulate? How can we proclaim a king we do not serve? Let's not forget that Jesus expected us to do what he did. His words were, "whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these." He did not say we would be able to do those things if we felt like it.

Surely it's better to fail while trying than to fail by doing nothing. Besides, doesn't God “rewards those who earnestly seek him” (Hebrews 11:6)?


FOOTNOTES
1. Quoted from "The God Who Does Miracles", Faith Comes By Hearing, https://www.faithcomesbyhearing.com/mission/story/the-god-who-does-miracles (accessed May 13, 2019).
2. The Greek (πεπληρωκέναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον) more literally says he filled or fulfilled the gospel, but as that is confusing in English, most translations add a noun as the object for the verb. For example, the NIV has "fully proclaimed", the NASB has "fully preached", the ESV has "fulfilled the ministry", and most other translations follow similar patterns. I choose the ESV rendering here because it avoids placing an emphasis on a verbal presentation of the gospel. The Greek word πεπληρωκέναι is perfect infinitive active form of πληρόω which means to make full, or to complete. The same word in a different tense is used in Matthew 1:22 where it says, "All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet."


Comments