No announcements found.No announcements found.No announcements found.No announcements found.



“Death creates an economy that makes life precious. One of the ways of naming that preciousness is friendship.”
Stanley Hauerwas

The meaning of Jesus’ miracles: an historical view
John Dickson
In terms of the quantity and quality of evidence, the reports about Jesus’ baffling deeds are without historical parallel. Even if we grant, as I do, that there were other healers and exorcists in Jesus’ day, the fact is, we know almost nothing about them. We certainly do not know how they themselves understood their work: Did they think it was ‘magic’? Did they believe it gave them an elevated status? Did they think it pointed to some greater meaning about the universe? We will never know. Here, then, is a unique dimension of the evidence about Jesus: not only do we possess credible reports from others about his fame as a miracle worker, we have several credible statements from his own lips about this aspect of his ministry.

What is a miracle anyway?

But first I want to clear up a misunderstanding. ‘Miracle’ is probably not the best word for a historical discussion of Jesus’ healings and exorcisms. From the Latin miraculum, ‘object of wonder’, in modern discussions the term miracle has come to mean something like: a supernatural contradiction or violation of the laws of nature. There is an entire worldview locked up in this description, one heavily indebted to the Enlightenment (particularly 18th-century philosopher David Hume.1).

It assumes a dualism, the presence of two worlds: an observable, physical one, and a hidden, spiritual one. When that spiritual world overrides the physical one, we have a miracle. Of course, philosophical materialists flat out deny any spiritual dimension to existence but their definition of a miracle still involves a hypothetical incursion into the natural world by something extraneous to it. I suspect some religious people today likewise think of miracles in terms of two worlds colliding—God bending or breaking the natural order to achieve some astonishing purpose. 		 
  'Miracle' is probably not the best word for a historical discussion of Jesus’ healings and exorcisms
  

But the Gospel writers did not think in this dualistic way. From their point of view—the Jewish point of view—there are not two worlds at all, just one, and God is its sole Creator and Sustainer. Everything that happens in the universe, from the rising of the sun to the gift of breath itself, is the powerful work of God. Whatever happens in the world, in other words, is his action in his world. As a result, Jews and Christians thought of ‘miracles’ not as invasions from a parallel world but as special examples of God’s preserving power in his creation.2 The difference may seem slight but in historical study it is important to try and think of things from the viewpoint of those we are studying rather than from our own perspective; how else can we stay attentive to the subtleties in the evidence? In any case, it is from within this Jewish worldview, where the Creator is constantly sustaining his creation, that the Gospel writers describe Jesus’ baffling deeds not as ‘supernatural’ or ‘miraculous’, but as special examples of power.

The typical Greek terms in the Gospels are dunameis, which means ‘strength’ or ‘authority’, and sēmeia, which means ‘signs’.3  The former describes Jesus as powerfully acting within and for the created order. The latter indicates that these displays of power pointed beyond themselves to some larger meaning. Bishop Tom Wright of Durham, who is also a noted theologian and historian, says of these Greek terms:

  These words do not carry, as the English word ‘miracle’ has sometimes done, overtones of invasion from another world, or from outer space. They indicate, rather, that something has happened, within what we would call the ‘natural’ world, which is not what would have been anticipated, and which seems to provide evidence for the active presence of an authority, a power, a work, not invading the created order as an alien force, but rather enabling it to be more truly itself.4  

That Jesus’ baffling deeds were understood as ‘powers’ (dunameis) is easy enough to comprehend, but in what sense were they ‘signs’ (sēmeia)? What meaning was attached to them and, in particular, what meaning did Jesus attach to them. As I noted a moment ago, the exceptional nature of our evidence allows us to answer this historical question with a surprising degree of confidence. We have at least two statements about the miracles from Jesus’ own lips, and both are found in our earliest Gospel source, Q, (a source behind Matthew and Luke) written down in the 50s AD.

1| 2| 3|