Posted on December 10, 2007 21:57
Steve Sensenig:
Well, the definitions I was looking at (via dictionary.com which culls from many different sources, including the one you quoted) emphasize the supernatural aspect of a miracle, rather than the frequency of it. However, I see what you are inferring from the bolded words there.
One thing that may be interfering here is the use of the word "miracle" itself. But if we are talking about the same thing, I'm not sure how you are concluding that healings, etc. described are "rare" in the accounts of the gospels and Acts. It appears to me, without publishing a full list of references here, that there is a tremendous amount of ink spilled in the gospels detailing healings that were performed. Am I exaggerating the case?
In fact, what's even more interesting to me is how casual the writers often are. For example, Matthew 8:14-16 speaks rather casually about the fact that Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law, and then many were brought to him to be healed. And he healed them all. Matthew sounds very matter-of-fact about it. But he doesn't use the word "miracle", so maybe that's what's throwing us off in this discussion.
Another case could be made from the fact that when Matthew 13:58 says that Jesus didn't do many miracles in Nazareth because of the unbelief, would this not imply that doing "many miracles" was a regular part of his ministry elsewhere? For example, Luke 7:19-22 says (again rather casually) that Jesus healed many people of diseases, illnesses, and evil spirits in a particular situation.
The matter-of-fact method of reporting these healings seems to discount the notion that they were "rare", wouldn't you say?
Through all of this, though, we're losing the original question that started this whole conversation this time around. Were those healings that Jesus and his disciples did solely for the purpose of authenticating the message (a role purportedly supplanted by the completion of canon)? Or are they part of the actual message of the kingdom that is announced?
We won't "waste cycles" if we get back to that question :)
Posted on December 11, 2007 07:49
Scott:
I'd say regarding the rarity of miracles that there was certainly a veritable plethora of miracles surrounding Jesus and his apostles. In the larger scope of the world though they were certainly rare and special. But you're correct, we could chase our tails for hours on nailing down a strict definition.
I think a large part of the purpose behind them was to authenticate Jesus and his messengers. I understand that there were a number of messiah claimants around Jesus' time and following. And of course we're told that there will be more and that they/he will perform miracles to "prove" he is who he says he is. So we can't discount that.
Is that the only reason? I'd say no. Jesus also perrformed miracles because he loved these people. He wants them whole. They want to be whole and believe that he can heal them. Part of the message is that wholeness that a relationship with Jesus can bring. I won't limit that to some sort of "spiritual" wholeness either, but I think that the spiritual part is more important. Just as Jesus performed these miracles he also spoke strongly about people who sought him out just for the signs and wonders he could perform.
So, the miracles are part of the message absolutely. The resurrection is part of the message. Remaining broken and seeking God's grace in our brokeness (sic) is part of the message. Anything that's part of the grand story put forth in the Bible is part of the message. Does that mean that the miraculous healings, speaking in tongues, etc. are now or should be now a part of everyday Christian life? Should miracles of those sorts be something that we should expect? Should we question our faith if an annointing of oil doesn't cure someone? Should we question theirs? I don't have the answers for those questions.