How do you define the term “miracle”? We use the term to describe all sorts of phenomena. We talk about hockey teams and births as miracles, we even name our children Miracle. Yet, we know this is not what theologians have in mind when they utilize the term. So, we must define it more carefully and certainly more Biblically. We saw last week that according to the Biblical worldview it is not most helpful to define the term in relation to nature. The second tool of refinement theologians often use is the category of “immediacy.” Immediacy too, however, fails to clarify the term in accordance with Scripture.
What do we mean by “immediacy”? Some theologians describe a miracle as an act that God does directly, immediately, by his own power. So J. Gresham Machen distinguishes miracles from general providence by stating:
In the case of other events, God uses means…whereas in the case of a miracle He puts forth his creative power just as truly as in that mighty act of creation which underlies the whole process of the world. (“Is the Bible Right About Jesus?”)
In his view, a miracle is “an event in the external world that is wrought by the immediate power of God” (What is Christianity? and Other Addresses, 55). This is a helpful distinction in theory. The failure of it, however, is that it doesn’t quite hold up in light of Scripture.
The Scriptures do not make this distinction themselves, and as we do theology we ought to be careful that our clarifications do not go beyond what Scripture states. B.B. Warfield noted that absences of Scriptural witness to this distinction, but insists that in light of the “unusual” nature of miracles they can only logically be contributed to the immediate act of God. What, one wonders, would the Princetonians have said about the miracle of God’s parting the Red Sea. Exodus 14:21 tells us that God parted the sea by using the mediation of a “strong east wind.” In John 9 Jesus heals the blind man with the application of mud mixed with spit, a gross mediation, but a miracle by mediation nonetheless.
Louis Berkhof tries to further clarify this distinction by saying that miracles may be mediated, but the mediation is not natural. So mud and spit do not usually bring about the return of sight. If doctors are spitting on blind patients we generally think that poor practice. So mediation may happen, but it is not mediation “of second causes in their ordinary operation” (Systematic Theology, 176). John Frame notes that this hardly seems a fitting addition to our definition.
We agreed at the outset that miracles are extraordinary. The question now is not whether they are extraordinary, but whether they ever employ created means. And it appears that they do. (The Doctrine of God, 252).
It seems a poor clarification to call miracles those acts which God does by direct or immediate activity. A proper definition of miracles needs to be more precise, and certainly needs to be grounded better in Scripture.
In the big picture it seems to me that as we approach a definition of “miracles” we generally have trouble understanding the ways in which God relates to the world. Our definitions can either affirm an active, involved, and sovereign God or they can undermine him. The Scriptures don’t paint a picture of the world as following natural process isolated from divine providence, and miracles as those moments when God suddenly and dramatically shows up. God is always already there and already involved. Sometimes he uses secondary causes to accomplish his will and sometimes he doesn’t, but that in and of itself does not define a miracle. Next week I will wrap up this series by helping us to think more carefully and with more nuance about a definition of miracles.
Sparrow & Heart Soul Care 