Should Christians Expect Miracles Today? Objections and Answers from the Bible, Part 4, by Wayne A. Grudem

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.

Another definition of miracle is “God working in the world without using means to bring about the results He wishes.” Yet to speak of God working “without means” leaves us with very few if any miracles in the Bible, for it is hard to think of a miracle that came about with no means at all. In the healing of people, for example, some of the physical properties of the sick person’s body were doubtless involved as part of the healing. When Jesus multiplied the loaves of the fishes, He used the original five loaves and two fishes that were there. When He changed water to wine, He used water and made it become wine. This definition seems to be inadequate.

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).

But can we consider unusual answers to prayer to be miracles? Apparently so, if they are remarkable enough to arouse people’s awe and wonder and cause them to acknowledge God’s power at work: The answer to Elijah’s prayer that God would send fire from heaven was a miracle (1 Kings 18:24, 36-38), as were the answers to his prayers that the widow’s dead son would come back to life (1 Kings 17:21 or that the rain would stop and later start again (1 Kings 17:1; 18:42-45 with James 5:17-18).

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.

Tags: answers, bible, cessationism, continuationism, D. A. Carson, demonic counterfeit, grudem, Holy Spirit, inferior faith, instantaneous miracle, Kingdom and the Power, miracles, objections, sign gifts, signs and wonders, tongues, Wayne Grudem

Category: Fall 2000, Pneuma Review, Spirit