__________________________________________________________________

           Title: The Miracles of Jesus
      Creator(s): Beth, Karl (1872-1959)
     Print Basis: New York: Easton & Mains (1907)
          Rights: Public Domain
   CCEL Subjects: All;
     __________________________________________________________________

    Edited by

R. J. COOKE, D. D.
     __________________________________________________________________

  FIRST SERIES. 16M0, CLOTH. EACH 40 CENTS, NET.
     __________________________________________________________________

THE VIRGIN BIRTH

  By Professor Richard H. Grützmacher, of the
  University of Rostock
     __________________________________________________________________

THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS

  By Professor Eduard Riggenbach, of the University
  of Basle
     __________________________________________________________________

THE SINLESSNESS OF JESUS

  By Professor Max Meyer, Lic. Theol., Gottberg,
  Germany
     __________________________________________________________________

THE MIRACLES OF JESUS

  By Professor Karl Beth, of the University
  of Berlin
     __________________________________________________________________

THE GOSPEL OF JOHN AND THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

  By Professor Fritz Barth, of the University
  of Bern
     __________________________________________________________________

NEW TESTAMENT PARALLELS IN BUDDHISTIC LITERATURE

  By Professor Karl Von Hase, of the University
  of Breslau
     __________________________________________________________________

                             The Miracles of Jesus

    By

KARL BETH

  Professor in the University of Berlin

NEW YORK: EATON & MAINS
CINCINNATI: JENNINGS & GRAHAM

   Copyright, 1907, by
   EATON & MAINS.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

I

OUR TASK

   IN every religion the supernatural affects man. The religious man seeks
   to grasp the supernatural. But the supernatural repels just as soon as
   it obtrudes itself in perceptible events and in a measure unveils the
   secret. The religious man sees himself in the struggle of these two
   tendencies of his being; he reaches after the supernatural and would
   snatch it, so imperfect does he feel himself and his world to be
   without it; but when he sees it he is tossed to and fro by doubts
   whether it is, indeed, the supernatural or merely a delusion.

   The Christian religion connects one most intimately with the
   supernatural. It reveals it. "Without controversy, God was manifest in
   the flesh." How is the union of the earthly creature and the divine
   nature, of God and man, to be realized? It might appear as impossible
   as the union of water and fire. Certainly, when it takes place,
   something happens which lies beyond all calculation, something wholly
   extraordinary, a miracle. This miracle, which repeats itself in every
   true Christian life, is linked with the life of Jesus of Nazareth,
   which--apart from any dogmatical statement--represents the godly life
   in its highest degree. The life of Jesus is the original miracle of
   Christian miracles. Four Gospels record this life, and these narratives
   show traits in the biographical portrait, which place the divine-human
   being of the founder of our religion, in immediate relation to the
   supernatural, and lift for us the veil of mystery. The Gospels are
   filled with the records of the miracles of Jesus. There the
   supernatural projects into this our world of nature in a solidly
   concrete manner. In the face of these miracles the religious man
   recognizes a twofold position. Truly, he, on whom we found our
   religious life, from whom we receive "grace for grace," can
   authenticate himself as sent from God by works which no other can do.
   And yet does it harmonize with the idea of the Redeemer who intended to
   seek souls and lead them to God, to interfere by means of miracles with
   the orderly course of the world? Is not such miracle-working written on
   another page than that of prophetical soul-saving ministry? Is not this
   trait so foreign to his otherwise known nature that pious contemplation
   might have rather ascribed it to him afterward? And, should
   Christianity in this matter move along the same line as many other
   religions in whose traditions miraculous deeds are also assigned to
   their founders and heroes, but the reality of which criticism can by no
   means admit? The history of religion brings before us a great mass of
   marvelous legends. This uniformity in religious traditions seems to
   point first of all to the fact that human need always led it to ascribe
   miraculous deeds to religious heroes, and that the same is also the
   case with the miracles of Jesus.

   The assertion is indeed very often made that Jesus did not perform real
   miracles, that is, acts which could not have been possible in the usual
   course of natural events. It is true that not all the remarkable cures
   of which the Gospels speak are questioned, but they are only admitted
   in so far as they stand in direct analogy to that class of psychical
   cures, which are also accomplished among us by suggestion,
   therapeutics, or magnetism. Thus the cures of Jesus appear, only as
   psychical influences produced by his strong personality, but which, on
   this account, cannot be declared miraculous. Thus, from this point of
   view, every real miracle is rejected.

   But let us see whether this estimate of the gospel miracles is
   necessary. The question is an historical one. One can decide against
   the reality of each miracle performed by Jesus without previously
   denying the possibility of miracles. The question of the possibility of
   the miraculous is entirely different from that of its historicity,
   especially of the miracles of Jesus. Leaving aside the question of
   possibility, we may try to answer the question: "What can be said of
   the reality of the miracles of Jesus on the basis of an historical
   consideration of the records?" Two points require our attention. In the
   first place, we may inquire whether the working of miracles belongs to
   the personality of Jesus; that is, whether the Messianic calling to
   establish the kingdom of God and to give to men a reconciled God
   included miraculous deeds. In the second place, the points in question
   are the historical instances which set forth the reality of the
   miracles of Jesus. Here religio-historical analogies, which seem to
   deprive the miracles of Jesus of their specific position and
   importance, as well as of their reality, have above all things to be
   taken into account. Our question also reads, whether the miracles of
   Jesus occupy a peculiar position over against the other miracles in the
   history of religion or whether they occupy the same position.
     __________________________________________________________________

II

WHAT JESUS SAYS OF THE MEANING OF HIS MIRACLES

   DO the miracles of Jesus accord with his life and work? This is the
   first question. This query may be answered most positively by placing
   in the center of our consideration the copious testimonies which the
   Lord himself has given concerning his wondrous deeds. The discourses of
   Jesus reveal the purport of his person, and the closer they follow the
   work of the person the more valuable they become. If we can ascertain
   what Jesus himself thought of his miracles, it will be at the same time
   clear whether miracles stand in a positive or negative relation to his
   character.

   We repeatedly read in the Gospels that the contemporaries of Jesus
   believed on him because of his miracles. This, at any rate, seems to
   suggest that the evangelist also occupied this position, that miracles
   were an excellent means for awakening faith, and that for this purpose
   Jesus himself performed his miracles. The three synoptists and the
   Gospel of John agree in such expressions. In John 11. 45, we read after
   the raising of Lazarus: "Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and
   had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him." Some, however,
   went to the Pharisees and embarrassed them by reporting the event
   (comp. John 2. 23; 7. 26-31). After the healing of the blind and dumb,
   the people seriously considered the question, "Is not this the son of
   David?" (Matt. 12. 23; comp. 9. 33, seq.) In like manner again the
   fourth evangelist when recording the miracle at Cana, says: Jesus
   "manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him" (John
   2. 11). But there are not wanting clearly expressed statements that the
   miracles themselves as such, were not able to hold the people to Jesus.
   Not only sworn opponents know how to invalidate the significance of
   such signs; even the enthusiastic multitude makes the very feeding
   which it itself witnessed, a reason for turning its back upon the
   Master when further expectations remain unfulfilled (John 6. 66).

   Jesus, however, thinks otherwise. His miracles were not to be a
   condition for the faith of men. They are not intended in the least to
   excite faith. On the contrary, Jesus aims at nothing more than to
   distract attention from his miraculous deeds. We may understand this
   fact correctly only by considering the peculiarity of his calling and
   the relation into which he was brought thereby to his countrymen. He
   knew himself as the Messiah for whom his people were eagerly looking.
   He saw in himself the realization of Israel's religious hopes. But, at
   the same time, he knew himself to be in the keenest opposition to
   popular expectations. He was the Messiah, and he was not. He was the
   Messiah in the real meaning of God's plan; yet he did not resemble the
   conception which the people had of the Messiah. He brought the highest
   good of the kingdom of God, the good of consummation. The people
   expected the coming of the Messiah and that the manifestation of his
   benefits would be accompanied with great signs and powerful deeds. The
   Messiah was to play a brilliant part and to authenticate himself by
   incomparable miracles; "With an iron rod" was he to shake off and abase
   all enemies of Israel, the Romans as well as the Herodians. It is the
   tragic element which runs through the life of Jesus that while wide
   circles of the people would acknowledge him as the Messiah, they could
   not recognize him as such because of that erroneous expectation. During
   the whole period of his captivity he had to struggle with this false
   Messianic idea; and he rejected those who clung only to his mighty
   deeds because through them their fancy was strengthened. The inner
   struggle was hard. The temptation was present to respond to the
   expectation of the people by showing himself in power; to summon more
   than ten thousand legions of angels. He decided against this method of
   asserting his Messianic call. He might thereby perhaps have advanced
   his fame but he would have missed his calling; for in this way he would
   have wholly confined the people to the worldly and the human, and would
   not have changed or gained their hearts.

   The synoptists introduce the ministry of Jesus with the narrative which
   brings before us this struggle of Jesus. In the form of a program he
   there expresses himself with respect to his calling. The history of the
   Temptation tells us with what decision from the very start, conscious
   of the only true path, he refused from principle every performance of a
   miraculous exhibition. To do this would have answered the expectation
   of the people who longed for a Messiah who brought about the kingdom of
   God full of blessing with a magic stroke by establishing an outward
   power, to suddenly make an end to all care of the earthly life and all
   distress caused by political oppression. But nothing of the kind lies
   in the purpose of Jesus! The kingdom of God comes not with observation.
   This he manifested unto the end.

   We see him going through the country of Galilee relieving distress,
   spreading blessings. He cured a blind man who also was dumb. His
   opponents did not consider this cure as a sign of his divine origin.
   They rather ask now for a sign as a proof that that cure was not caused
   by the devil dwelling in him (Matt. 12. 38-45). Jesus agrees with his
   adversaries in one point: a miracle, be it never so surprising, cannot
   be considered a sign that one is sent from God. This we infer from his
   subsequent words. At the same time, however, he vehemently addresses
   the representatives of the hierarchy: "An evil and adulterous
   generation (that is, according to prophetical phraseology; a generation
   which apostatized from the marriage covenant with God) seeketh after a
   sign" (Matt. 12. 39); that is, a sign which shall be self-evidencing
   that the performer of it is God. Those people desired to see some
   sudden phenomenon, a "sign from heaven" (Matt. 16. 1). The Messiahship
   was to be ascertained from something more wonderful than an
   extraordinary cure of a disease. The kingdom of God is not to be
   established by the spirit of Jesus, not by the gospel and repentance.
   Jesus judges their eagerness as the manifestation of a mania for
   miracles, which is an obstacle to faith. What kind of faith would that
   be which would thus be called forth! A sign was to take place which
   makes faith superfluous by demanding an apparently physical
   interference of God in the human world, a sign which obtains the
   "faith" by force. A generation, with such a mania for miracles, is
   "adulterous," is too far from God that it should turn inwardly to God,
   even in consequence of the greatest miracle; therefore "no sign shall
   be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas."

   What is to be understood by the sign of Jonas? The Gospel of Matthew
   referred the words to the resurrection of Jesus, and put this
   interpretation into the mouth of Jesus himself. But this resurrection
   which (as verse 40 states) did not take place after three days and
   three nights, but after two nights and one day--was it really meant by
   Jesus to be the infallible sign of his Messiahship? In reality it had
   not become such a sign. It did not take place so publicly that the
   adulterous generation believed thereby; in fact that generation did not
   receive that sign at all, but those only who believed in God. There can
   be no doubt that in verse 40 we have the opinion of the evangelist
   before us, or, rather, the interpretation of the word of Jesus handed
   down to him. This becomes evident from the other Gospel account of this
   event. In the narrative of Luke (11. 30), the point of comparison is
   given differently. As Jonas became a sign to the Ninevites, so the Son
   of man shall be to this generation. The prophet Jonas, however, became
   to the inhabitants of the eastern city a purely spiritual sign,
   appropriated not so much through some physical happening but, rather,
   through the power of the Spirit. Jonah's courageous preaching of
   repentance and its powerful success proved his divine commission. In
   this way the God-estranged generation is to be overcome. Thus Jesus, in
   his personality and call to repentance and pledge of salvation, will
   also be the sign appointed for this generation. It is by no means
   necessary to think of a near or distant future when this sign shall
   take place. It is, rather, meant that this very sign is already present
   and is given now; and that hereafter no other sign shall be given than
   this, just as the Old Testament prophet gave it to the heathenish city.

   A beautiful parallel to this word of Jesus is the parable of the
   obedient and disobedient sons together with its explanation (Matt. 21.
   23-32). The parable is an answer to the question, 'By what authority
   was Jesus teaching the people? Jesus refused a direct answer because
   "the elders" did not reply to his question as to whence the Baptist
   received his authority. Now he says the call to repentance of the
   Baptist was made in order to bring about a change of heart. In their
   attitude toward him the scribes resemble the disobedient son who at
   first promised to obey his father, but afterward thinks otherwise and
   will not listen to the (now in Jesus) repeated voice of the father. But
   the sinners who follow Jesus and are inwardly changed are like the son
   who at first refuses obedience and afterward repents and returns home.
   Here, too, the thought is decisive, that it does not require an
   extraordinary sign to convince man of the nearness of God the call of
   repentance ought to have shown to all that God is at the door. Thus
   also is it with the attitude of men toward Jesus. "By what authority"
   he acts, and whether he is the revealed of God, is to be inferred from
   his presence and his teaching.

   The continuation of the address of Jesus proves that the statement
   concerning the sign of Jonas, according to Matthew, notwithstanding the
   interpretation given in the text, must not be understood of a certain,
   miraculous act. When the people of Nineveh, because they repented at
   the preaching of Jonas, shall, as it were, rise up in the judgment
   against the Jewish scribes at the general resurrection (verse 42), the
   salient point is that the sign for them is the preaching of repentance.
   This characteristic feature of the sending of Jonas, Jesus applies to
   his position in Israel. When a plain prophet already made such an
   impression and became a credible sign, how much more must every open
   heart see in Jesus, in him, the Sinless One, the sign from heaven; for
   "here is a greater than Jonas." How often, of his work from which alone
   man can infer as here, Jesus refers to the uniform totality, his sign
   of the Messiahship! He will not perform a miraculous feat in order to
   acquire acknowledgment at least, where curiosity, superstition, or even
   unbelief looks for it. He states clearly that those are in error and
   far from the kingdom of God who seek a manifestation of God in
   miraculous phenomena. The manifestation, rather, accomplishes itself in
   history, in the mental, historical life of humanity. There the
   honest-hearted will perceive the signs of God. Expressive of severe
   judgment on those having a mania for miracles, Christ tells us that
   prodigies, as a means of awakening faith, are not to be thought of. We
   see Jesus here intentionally diverting attention from all kinds of
   magic, every kind of fetichism, everything carnal in religion. The
   spiritual element of the religion founded by him is emphasized in that
   God and his will may be known in the sphere of the spiritual. What one
   understands by the miracles of Jesus, wherever one occurs is not to be
   connected with the intention to establish religion or reveal God; all
   this belongs not to the "sign" which humanity must regard, in order to
   know by what authority Jesus spoke and acted.

   The peculiarity of Jesus's conception of his miracles is thus
   sufficiently clear. The object of his life is this: to prepare men for
   his gospel and to lead them to God by influencing their minds. For this
   purpose his miracles are not conducible, for he knows very well that by
   them no sinful men become godly, and no atheist a believer in God. To
   this deep discerner of man the way of human reason which tries to
   explain to itself by natural means even the problems of the
   supernatural, is not unknown. The natural man seeks after natural
   causes and does not reason from the miracle to the supernatural agent
   of the miracle. Even the "greatest" miracle--the resurrection of the
   dead--will not be accepted. Reason will seek for secret mundane causes
   and will find them. This very case Jesus emphasizes by supplying the
   critique on all spiritualistic longing in the parable of Lazarus and
   the rich man: If men believe not the living word and the Spirit of God,
   they will not believe, though one rose from the dead (Luke 16. 31). He
   only will be able to perceive in the miracles a deed of God who is
   already convinced of God's power and work. For this reason Jesus
   performs no miracles for unbelievers. For such his miracles would only
   provoke indifference and hardness of heart.

   These thoughts we find in many expressions of Jesus. Consider, for
   example, his coming to his home city of Nazareth, as Luke describes it
   (4. 23-27) . The unbelieving people have asked him to do before their
   eyes the same deeds as in Capernaum; but he refuses, and refers to
   Elias and Eliseus, who did not use the God-given power for miraculous
   help among Jews, but bestowed it upon two non-Israelites who, by their
   faith, were truly qualified to receive the blessing. Or, let us take
   the answer to the question of the Baptist, in which he emphasizes the
   Messianic character of his activity, and mentions miracles only in
   connection with the founding of the Messianic kingdom, and subordinates
   them to his preaching (Matt. 11. 2-6). He designates his activity as
   that of the promised Messiah, and refers to the Messianic time as
   predicted by Isaiah. Events of a wondrous nature have come to pass, but
   the miraculous element in them is not the main thing, but the result:
   that misery ceases when God's hand is stretched out in mercy and
   tenderness. Thus those miracles come into question only as elements in
   the preaching of salvation, and this is also indicated in the answer of
   Jesus when he commanded them to "Go and show John again those things
   which ye do hear and see." God's kingdom of blessing comes through the
   joyful message of Jesus, which preaching, however, is accompanied by
   distinctive characteristics of the happy state which is yet to be
   restored in God's world.

   In a more decided manner is the working of miracles subordinated to
   that of preaching in Mark 1. 33-39. At Capernaum in the evening, Jesus
   healed many sick people. With the first early dawn he retires from the
   city to a solitary place for prayer. His disciples, led by Peter,
   follow after him, and, finding him, wish to bring him back to the city,
   as the inhabitants were seeking him. And he? "Let us go into the next
   towns, that I may preach there also: for therefore came I forth." Luke,
   who describes more fully this event (4. 42-44), makes him say still
   plainer that his life's object was none other than the preaching of the
   kingdom of God. According to this account the multitude itself had come
   to Jesus and urged him not to depart from them; but he tells them
   plainly: "I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also; for
   therefore am I sent."

   All this proves that Jesus considered his miraculous power not as
   something independent of his call to repentance and the kingdom of God,
   nor did he wish it to be considered as such. In estimate and value as
   they easily appear at a superficial glance in the synoptic Gospels,
   miracles are of little importance. Jesus himself does not consider them
   as the quintessence of his work. Nevertheless, according to our
   records, he so readily demonstrated his divinity by his miracles that
   the granting of the same must have been of decisive importance to him.
   Indeed, Jesus did not consider his miracles as a superfluous element of
   his appearance, but, as the answer to the Baptist already showed, they
   were for him an important element in the coming of the kingdom of God,
   as is seen in the fact that on the occasion on which he rebuked those
   who were seeking signs he again refers to his works (Matt. 12. 33,
   seq.; Luke 11. 14, seq.). Miraculous cures were not uncommon or
   unexpected among those people; there were some who boasted of such arts
   and were occasionally successful; hence, it was no sign of his
   Messiahship for the prejudiced opponents of Jesus when he cured one who
   was "blind and deaf" by casting out his demon. We are told that the
   multitude preferred, rather, the inference as to his Davidic sonship,
   that is, his Messiahship; the Pharisees, however, opposed it by saying:
   "He casts out the demons not with the help of God, but as an associate
   of the head of the devils, the lord of the kingdom of demons." Over
   against this accusation Jesus proves the absurdity of such a charge,
   since he would thus destroy the kingdom itself with which he is in
   league. This being impossible, he can only act through the Spirit of
   God; and where demons are cast out there the kingdom of God has come
   unto men (Matt. 12. 28).

   In this way Jesus manifests his matchless activity against the powers
   of darkness as part of his divine plan; not that faith in his divinity
   would be weakened by such intervention, but that the powers of evil
   should thereby be restrained and the way prepared for the government of
   God. All his cures may be regarded from the same point of view. The
   cure of the man sick of the palsy (Mark 2. 3-13), with its pointed
   reference to forgiveness of sins, is an illustration. The proceedings
   on this occasion could, indeed, soonest make the impression that Jesus
   performed a miraculous cure in order that unbelievers also might
   acknowledge his divine mission; but such is not the case, for we find
   not the least indication that the cure produced faith among the
   scribes; and the events themselves, notwithstanding verse 10, allow not
   the opinion that Jesus intended to awaken the faith of the incredulous.
   Here, as elsewhere, he promised to the sick the forgiveness of his
   sins. The hierarchs looked upon it as blasphemy. To purge himself from
   this reproof he suggests to those people their judgment on the bodily
   cure now to be accomplished, namely, that he cannot only promise
   something whose actual occurrence cannot be controlled by men, but also
   something which at once must either prove itself valid or invalid. He
   could have cured the sick man without this illustration of his work
   which was provoked by his adversaries, for not to heal was wholly
   against his custom. The circumstances, however, offered at this time
   the opportunity to call attention to the connection of his preaching of
   the kingdom with the conveyance of earthly blessing.

   Answering this conception of the Messianic calling, Jesus combined with
   it the works of divine love and mercy. As Jesus decidedly expressed
   himself against the assumption that every particular disease is a
   consequence of a sin, so also was he convinced that there did exist a
   general organic connection between physical evil and religio-moral
   deficiency. The latter is perceived as the real cause of the depth of
   the physical sphere. Moral deficiency exercises a generally
   degenerating influence, analogous to the depressing effect which the
   sinking of the spiritual level of a person exercises upon his entire
   embodiment. That defect in the domain of the human nature is a sequence
   of apostasy from God, hereditary in humanity; a sequence thereof, that
   men deny their God-relationship by their practical life and effort,
   comes out in the teaching and working of Jesus. It was, therefore, in
   the interest of his calling to remove, in the first place, the distress
   of souls, and at the same time also to abolish the bodily misery
   organically connected with this distress of the soul. Jesus was
   inwardly moved to help physically where he helped spiritually; and this
   doubly apparent wondrous help is nothing else than the immediate
   practical proof of the divine will of love. As often as the Father
   moved him Jesus showed his divinely helping love. Helping and blessing,
   saving and redeeming, his mercy interposed also in the outward life of
   individuals. Not only healing diseases, raising the dead, feeding the
   multitude, but, in general, all the miracles which he performed were
   emanations of this compassion over spiritual wretchedness, which
   inclined to bodily distress in order to completely finish its work.

   Let us look back! Jesus came to found the kingdom of God; to lead men
   into it, and thus bring them to a voluntary submission to God's
   government. The proper means for that is the preaching of glad tidings
   which only he can accept whose heart is changed, whose mind is directed
   toward repentance. But it belongs to the Messianic task to overcome not
   only the ethico-religious wretchedness of remoteness from God and of
   being forsaken by God, but also physical natural misery in its
   different forms. This natural suffering Jesus regards as the disorder
   of the divinely arranged relations in the human world, in. which
   Satan's rule has entered. The complete victory of God belongs, indeed,
   to the future; but the blows which Jesus strikes the power of darkness
   are an earnest and pledge of the world's renovation. So far as saving
   miracles are signs, they are not such for the divine authority of
   Jesus, but only of the love of the heavenly Father and the coming of
   his kingdom.

   This ethico-religious regeneration is not merely the more important
   element in the endeavor, of Jesus; it is also the essential preliminary
   condition for the effectuation of the love which shows itself in
   Jesus's miracles of mercy. His miracles can only take place where there
   is a disposition toward God, or has at least commenced. No miracle is
   done to break unbelief; but where it is broken, God's power is visible.
   For an extraordinary physical event has never, the ability to convince
   men who are lacking in religious and moral willingness; and, because
   miracles, on the one hand, are the accessory phenomena of the Messianic
   work, and on the other, must remain unintelligible to unbelief, Jesus
   never referred to them, properly speaking. Connected with this is the
   fact that by no means did he think miraculous power "as robbery," the
   possession of which he alone had to secure. Being conscious of
   possessing it in consequence of his immediate communion with God, he
   was not afraid to convey it to everyone who, like him, lives in the
   will of God. This trait makes clear anew the difference between the
   Messiahship and the miraculous power of Jesus; the former belonged to
   him exclusively. When thinking of it he emphasized his person as unique
   which, unlike anyone else, stands in essential connection with God. He
   and he alone has to bring the glad tidings. He and he alone can give
   remission of sins and establish the kingdom of God. But the power of
   working miracles he gave to undefiled faith generally. Where there is a
   man who in every moment is absolutely sure of his God--to whom, indeed,
   also absolutely moral purity belongs--there "all things are possible"
   (Mark 9. 23).

   Thus far we have purposely followed only the synoptic tradition. The
   Johannean record requires a separate treatment, because it may seem and
   it has been repeatedly affirmed, that John and the Johannean Jesus
   ascribed to miracles a far greater and at the same time, a more
   external importance. The objectors to the genuineness of the fourth
   Gospel freely emphasize the fact that the Johannean Jesus, as
   distinguished from the synoptic, makes much of his person and his
   miracles; and it is remarkable indeed that we have here statements of
   Jesus concerning his miracles which read entirely different. Was it
   impossible to assign to. the synoptic Jesus the idea that his
   miraculous power should or only could, awaken belief in man? In the
   fourth Gospel more than once we hear from the mouth of Jesus that his
   miraculous deeds were to serve Revelation and Faith. Thus (John 9. 3)
   before healing the man who was born blind Jesus says that his blindness
   is not in consequence of sin, either of the parents or of the sufferer
   himself, but in order that "the works of God should be made manifest in
   him," and at once. Jesus puts his healing ministry parallel with his
   ministry of enlightening the world. At the report of the sickness of
   his friend, Lazarus, he says to the disciples: "This sickness is not
   unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be
   glorified thereby." When he hears of his death he says to his
   disciples: "I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the
   intent ye may believe" (John 11. 15). Before the raising of Lazarus he
   openly thanks God because of the people which stood by (verse 42) "that
   they may believe that thou hast sent me."

   Have we here, indeed, a different conception of the importance of the
   miracles than in the synoptists? This question can not be answered by
   considering the quoted words alone; we can only decide upon it when
   other Johannean words of Jesus on miracles are also considered.
   Nevertheless, something can be stated here. Jesus does not say that by
   this miraculous cure his divine glory should be manifest, but that "the
   works of God" should be brought near to men. And the further connection
   of the thought proves irrefutably that the fundamental conception of
   Jesus, as to the place of his miracles, according to the Johannean
   account, is none other than that of the synoptists. For the miraculous
   cure is included in the works of God which latter, according to verses
   4 and 5, are just the works which Jesus does in order to fulfill his
   calling as the Light of the world; or, as it might be expressed
   according to the synoptists, in order to establish the kingdom of God
   with the help of the accompanying deeds of blessing. The healing,
   therefore, belongs to the large class of works of Jesus, which we shall
   consider later.

   Concerning the words quoted from the story of Lazarus, the first two
   are addressed to the disciples who are not classed with unbelievers.
   When at the resurrection the intention, nevertheless, prevailed that
   the Son of God should be glorified and the disciples "come to believe,"
   it cannot mean that they should be converted from unbelief to faith. We
   are compelled, however, to affirm, according to the synoptists, that
   absolute faith is not a condition for experiencing a miracle, but the
   direction of the spirit toward God, and the will aspiring after God,
   which on their part by the perception of the miracle can indeed become
   strengthened. What is not clear is the word spoken with respect to the
   people standing by (verse 42). It will be seen that the Johannean
   discourses of Jesus offer no grounds for the supposition that Jesus
   ever insisted that his miracles were means for awakening faith. Only on
   the supposition that among the surrounding Jews who were mostly friends
   of Mary and Martha, the necessary religious disposition existed for the
   right acceptance of the miracle, does the word spoken with respect to
   the people conform to the idea of Jesus, which is, moreover, to be
   elicited from the record. His prayer, that these people, in virtue of
   this resurrection, might come to belief in his divine mission, denotes
   then that their yet imperfect faith might come to the true Christian
   belief in the operation of divine grace.

   The dispute with the Jews, recorded in chapter 10. 32-38 (comp. 14.
   11), admits also of no other conception. When they endeavored to stone
   him Jesus referred to the "many good works from my Father," which he
   "showed" them. The "works" appear here as the only refuge which he has
   over against their charge of blasphemy: "If I do not the works of my
   Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe
   the works; that ye may know and believe, that the Father is in me, and
   I in him." Did he therein state that he performed miracles for the
   purpose of moving the Jews to faith? This could not have been the
   meaning, if by works miracles were to be understood. For one must not
   overlook that Jesus makes a concession here which, according to the
   nature of the concession, is far from making known his real view.

   For these and like statements in the Gospel of John it is very
   important that under the works of the Lord his miracles are not to be
   understood. True, there is also no reason for excluding miracles from
   the interpretation of works; but they are not thought of as in the
   first place. When Jesus says that his meat consists in his
   life-purpose, to finish the work intended by God (4. 34), he designates
   the discharge of his life-task as the work of God, namely, his endeavor
   that men should believe and obtain eternal life. And it means the same
   whether he speaks of his Father, or of his own work, whether of work in
   the singular or of works in the plural. His works are not single
   miraculous deeds in the realm of nature, but they consist in bringing
   about the kingdom of God, which begins on this side through spiritual
   quickening and shall be completed only at the general resurrection of
   the dead and the last judgment (verses 20-29). On this account he does
   not think of his miracles when conscious that his works testify of him;
   his divine sending is attested rather by his Messianic ministry (verse
   36).

   This must be borne in mind for the understanding of a text like 15. 24:
   "If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they
   had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my
   Father." This means that whoever has experienced the ministry of Jesus,
   his preaching of death and life, together with his bestowal of
   blessings, without humbling his mind and without opening his heart to
   faith, has committed the fundamental sin--unbelief. The "works" of
   Jesus produce faith provided man is not impenitent. His miracles in
   themselves have no such power. That the miracles are out of the
   question verse 22 proves, where Jesus mentions his "coming and
   speaking" instead of his works.

   Considering this understanding of the words of Jesus, we find that the
   principle is expressed more strikingly and more frequently in John than
   in the synoptists that the signs which God gives to men are not
   wondrous events in nature or outward history but the Lord's preaching
   of repentance and salvation. The Gospel of John, too, has preserved the
   direct rejection of all mania for miracles, and of a faith
   accommodating itself to miracles. It is here most severely expressed in
   the words: "Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe" (4.
   48); and against this reproach is set the praise of those who believe
   without seeing (20. 29). In general, it is mere assertion which cannot
   be proved that in the fourth Gospel the miracles play a greater part
   and are exaggerated, as if the author intended to demonstrate faith in
   Jesus as the divine Logos by greater miracles. The difference between
   John and the synoptists on this point is just the opposite. While the
   account of the synoptists is so excessively unbiased that we would
   think that Jesus possessed inherent power of miracle, and while
   sometimes the idea seems to be that Jesus walked among men like a
   miracle-worker, practicing magic, according to the Johannean tradition
   Jesus refers his miraculous power to a continual connection with the
   heavenly Father who in any particular individual case consents to a
   performance of the miracle. Here every magical idea is absolutely
   precluded. The personal God is in him with his own working and impulse.
   The personality of Jesus becomes thus more intelligible to us; it
   becomes more lucid to us by the testimony of the beloved disciple who
   understood best the uniqueness of his Master.

   Very clear--to refer to it again--is the statement made to the
   sign-seekers in the fourth Gospel (6. 25, seq.). In spite of the
   miraculous feeding the people in their carnally religious expectation
   are not satisfied. Like the Pharisees they wish to see something very
   extraordinary, according to the synoptic tradition, in connection with
   the healing of the demoniac. The feeding of five thousand people with a
   few loaves is not acknowledged as a sign which proves the Messiah.
   Notwithstanding this miracle Jesus is considered by the people lower
   than Moses, because the latter brought bread down from heaven visibly.
   They do not consider the fact that the fathers also had not recognized
   that the bread in the wilderness was a gift of heaven. The wonder of
   the past as such obtains in their thought a higher character than this
   miracle, and their demand is that he who is sent from God should again
   legitimatize himself by this, that he give them a sign from heaven. In
   the answer of Jesus we have the complete correlate to the address
   preserved by the synoptists directed to the leaders of the people
   having a mania for miracles. In like tenor Jesus denies that by the
   gift of Moses's manna, he gave a sign to the fathers. It was not Moses
   but God who gave the sign. And it is God who now gives in these days,
   continually the sign which was once given in the wilderness, according
   to the opinion of the people; the true, genuine bread "which cometh
   down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world" (verse 33). And at
   once Jesus makes a personal application: "I am the bread of life"
   (verse 35). The meaning is, accordingly: "I, myself, I, as preacher of
   the gospel, as bringer of life, am the sign which you ask." The
   rejection of the mania for miracles is indicated here just as in Matt.
   12. The true Bread of Life by John and the Jonas' sign by the
   synoptists are essentially the same. "You have seen and heard me," says
   the Lord, "and this is sufficient that you should believe (verse 36).
   From my whole person, the works and words which proceed from me,
   everyone must understand, that my message is the divine truth, the true
   religion, and that the Father hath sealed me" (verse 27). It requires
   no material sign to grasp the divine truth as divine; it needs only a
   purely spiritual penetration to experience the revelation in a living
   manner. We think here also of the teaching which emphasizes a sense for
   God, and an endeavor for a life founded in God, as the principal
   condition; and, indeed, as the only one for an understanding of the
   revelation of God: "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the
   doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself" (John 7.
   17). Jesus does not refer at all to the miraculous feeding, as if it
   were, perhaps, a sign of his origin or of his peculiar essence and
   might lead human perception into the right path. Whoever demands
   phenomena--extraordinary, powerful deeds--as evidences of the divine
   will be a loser; he is lacking in the principal condition for religious
   knowledge.

   The outcome of what has thus far been said is this: Neither the Gospel
   of John nor the synoptic Gospels offer a reasonable support for the
   supposition that Jesus performed his miracles in order to awaken faith
   by them. At best he regarded them only as the means of strengthening
   faith already existing. Miracles are the self-evident outflow of that
   same compassionate love which wishes and creates the kingdom of God,
   and this purpose they serve only indirectly. In John's Gospel (9. 3) as
   well as in the first three Gospels, human misery appears as the factor
   which induces Jesus to bring miraculous help, on the assumption that
   faith already exists which can esteem his work as an emanation of the
   divine love. The interest of the evangelists in the miraculous may,
   after all, be different in both cases; yet both accounts permit us to
   perceive with desirable clearness the estimate in which Jesus held his
   miracles. There is yet another trait which shows in a peculiar manner
   how both narratives, notwithstanding various differences, still supply
   us with the same religiously important facts. I refer to the parallel
   of John 6. and Matthew 16. All ethics agree that in both instances we
   are at the same historical place. The feeding is followed by the
   rejection of the superficial and only too carnally-minded Galilean
   masses. Those who now faithfully abide with Jesus have passed through a
   crisis to which the multitude succumbed. The faithful have thus arrived
   at a height of their religious life. John transmits to us a word from
   the mouth of a disciple, spoken on this new height of knowledge
   attained by the band of disciples, confessing without reserve that the
   faith of the disciples did not have its origin in witnessing miracles.
   When many followers in consequence of disappointed expectations had
   turned from the Master he asks the closer circle of his twelve, whether
   they too would leave him. Then Peter answered: "To whom shall we go?
   thou halt the words of eternal life. And we have believed and know that
   thou art the Holy One of God" (John 6. 67, seq.). The disciple
   expresses the religious experience by which he is overpowered not any
   outward sign, not any miraculous act has led him to believe, but the
   "words of life" out of the mouth of the Lord--the gospel itself.
   According to the synoptists Jesus, after his failure among the Galilean
   population, went to the northwest, beyond the limits of Palestine; and
   when in these days of itinerancy with the disciples he approached
   Caesarea Philippi he asks his disciples that remarkable question what
   they thought of him (Matt. 16. 13, seq.; Mark 8. 27, seq.). At the full
   acknowledgment of his Messiahship, which Peter makes, Jesus expresses
   the same canon on religious knowledge which, according to John, Peter
   formulated in other words. Jesus is convinced that nothing in the realm
   of visible events, nothing that belongs to the sphere of earthly
   happenings, has brought about the faith of the disciple. "Flesh and
   blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in
   heaven." It is a direct divine effect when man comes to this condition
   of faith. Man does not become certain of the divine through influences
   which come from the life in flesh and blood, though such were ever so
   wonderful and extraordinary, but by this, that the source of the
   spiritual life is opened to the heart in the gospel of Jesus.

   Such being the case, one might easily be led to think that according to
   the view of Jesus the miraculous in general could not be an object of
   faith. But this would evidently be going too far. There is, indeed, no
   doubt that in the working of miracles he gave no room to the thought
   that they should become objects of faith. Nevertheless, it was not the
   thought of Jesus either that one should deny offhand that his miracles
   can and ought to be believed. Only they cannot be objects of nascent
   faith. From a certain height of faith only can one perceive the fact
   and significance of a miracle. That Jesus wrought wonders is not to be
   inserted into the spiritual possession of a man who through a living,
   spiritual experience has not already possessed faith in the divine
   dignity of Jesus.

   Jesus himself is the great miracle, given for a sign to humanity; who,
   therefore, in his sinlessness can dare to convince all of their
   sinfulness, can dare to convince all of sin and to call all to
   repentance; who, by virtue of a divine authority subjects all hearts to
   himself. This is Jesus's own declaration, and, let us add, also the
   declaration of his great apostle Paul. He traversed the world with the
   message of Jesus, the Miraculous One, who works in the souls of men the
   miracle of miracles. But nowhere in his epistles does he refer in proof
   of it to a single miraculous deed of the Lord, just as he never
   mentions any of the miracles performed by himself as recorded in the
   Acts of the Apostles, although he had occasion for doing so. The only
   historical miracle to which his preaching refers is the resurrection of
   Jesus from the dead; but this event stands for him in the center of his
   entire view of life. Beyond this, miraculous events have evidently no
   significance for his view of the world, or for his religious
   experience. He knows that in all his labors he is directly under the
   miraculous guidance of Almighty God, and that he receives from the Lord
   Christ spiritual power which is made perfect in weakness. He lives with
   the conviction that Jesus is the Messiah sent of God; that from the
   place of his heavenly exaltation he establishes, increases, preserves
   the holy congregations on earth. He believes in that miracle which is
   presented to the world in Jesus and his preaching, his death and his
   resurrection. In his missionary labors he is entirely removed from
   directing attention to the miraculous acts of the Lord.
     __________________________________________________________________

III

WHAT WE CAN SAY ON THE HISTORICITY OF THE MIRACLES OF JESUS

   WE have seen that the miracles of Jesus are to be estimated not only as
   a constituent part but also as an integral part of his entire Messianic
   calling. The first of these two questions has been decided in the
   affirmative; miracles make no break either in the personality or in the
   calling of Jesus. We turn to the second question: What can be
   ascertained purely historically concerning the reality of the miracles
   of Jesus? It has already been pointed out that the question as to the
   reality of the miracles of Jesus has two sides. Here we do not deal
   with the question as to whether miracles are, on the whole, possible
   and conceivable, but solely with the purely historical question,
   whether historical instances can be obtained for the reality of the
   miracles of Jesus. But this question also demands division. In the
   first place, it comes in the form whether anything can be ascertained
   relative to the reality of miracles from a consideration of the state
   of the gospel tradition. In the second place, the religio-historical
   consideration obtrudes itself with power. Antiquity is rich in miracles
   which, like the miracles of Jesus in the new Testament, are ascribed
   both to heroes of heathenish mythology and legend, and also to truly
   historical personalities. Thus the problem is not to be rejected, but
   must present itself to every man, to every Christian: If the miracles
   of Jesus are to be accepted from Christian sources as historical facts,
   should one not judge with the same certainty as to the historicity of
   the miracles handed down in heathendom? On the other hand: If we
   hesitate to accept the miracles of heathenism, in which we see,
   perhaps, purely fictitious legend, should we not also deny the reality
   of the miracles of Jesus? To both of these questions we now turn our
   attention.

   It may seem that, on the whole, one must concede that on the ground of
   historical inquiry he cannot assert something about the reality of an
   object which is supernatural, and which therefore lies outside the
   circle of events which we call historical. Without doubt this is
   correct; history can never speak the last word in such questions. How
   will one prove the historicity of a thing which, according to its very
   historical connection between cause and effect, is undiscernible? How
   will one establish a miracle through historical and literary inquiry?
   Such being the case, the other is also impossible: to try to prove the
   unhistoricity of the miracle records of the Gospel with the aid of
   historical inquiry. For history as such has for the same reason no
   right to speak on that subject. Through historical inquiry we may be
   able to find out instances, probability arguments for or against the
   reality of a recorded miracle; and we shall soon see that from the
   gospel records themselves a number of reasons can be referred to for
   the historicity of the miracles which, just as far as historical
   arguments are able, speak in favor of the reality of those miracles.

   To be sure, an establishment in this sense of the facts for miracles
   would be impossible if at the outset the credibility of the records
   were as doubtful as is often supposed; if, in the "Christ-picture of
   faith," which the Gospels offer, nothing else were to be seen than the
   picture of the historical Jesus adorned with a rich wreath of wondrous
   stories invented by religious enthusiasm for the person of Jesus, and
   otherwise distorted into the supernatural. Where such an opinion as
   this prevails, the attributing of miracles to Jesus is explained as the
   unavoidable consequence of Jewish belief in Jesus's Messianic dignity.
   In keeping with the Jewish Messianic expectation, early Christian
   believers simply had the wondrous deeds of the Old Testament men of God
   re- peated and surpassed by Jesus. Thus the miracles ascribed to Jesus
   are criticized away without difficulty, as the imputation of
   sentimental belief. A critique of this kind neutralizes itself, since
   it results in nothing but the greatest inconsequence. Negative
   criticism gladly accepts those words of Jesus which he delivered to
   those demanding a sign against the performance of an extraordinary
   miracle. No one objects to the idea that this attitude of Jesus is
   historical. But when it is to be inferred from this that in reality
   Jesus did no miracles, that he refused to perform any miracle, negative
   criticism is forced to consider all words of Jesus which refer to the
   accomplishment of any certain miracle, either as invented or as handed
   down in the record completely distorted. Discourses of Jesus which
   refer to a miracle which took place, or was to take place, are found in
   great number, and form the most important evidence against the denial
   of miracles, for these numerous words would completely hang in the air
   if the respective miracles had not taken place. Thus, for instance, the
   words spoken to the Pharisees before the healing of the man sick of the
   palsy (Matt. 9. 5, 6). The record is so unique that one cannot explain
   how such words could have been invented had there been no miracle.
   Think, also, of the discourse which refers to the feeding of the five
   thousand (Matt. 16. 18, seq.), or of the answer to the Baptist (Matt.
   9. 4, seq.), or of the discourse on the Sabbath question called forth
   by healing of the sick (three times according to the synoptists). The
   very clear historical picture, against which no objection can lie, is
   this: that very extraordinary deeds were performed by Jesus which only
   emanated from his mercy, or now and then were performed perhaps for the
   purpose of symbolizing a higher, worldly wisdom. At the same time it is
   by no means necessary that all astonishing deeds of Jesus are to be
   understood as real miracles. It is possible that a large number of
   these do not go beyond the measure of that psycho-physical superiority,
   which is also found in rare cases among men. A. great number of cures
   may be directly paralleled to strange cures of later times. The Gospels
   themselves do not speak of all remarkable deeds of the Lord as having
   been real miracles; yet we have a number of events, also of cures,
   which can only be looked upon as real miracles.

   It is only over against satisfying the mania for miracles that Jesus
   refused to perform miracles. To refuse a sign is by no means peculiar
   in the attitude of Jesus. It is in harmony with his attitude toward
   other matters, and is mainly the application of his fixed purpose to
   this special thing. For this one fact is absolutely certain: that Jesus
   neither did nor did he intend to answer to the Jewish popular
   expectation, according to which the kingdom of God had to come with
   observation; and that the Messiah had to surpass in mighty wonders
   everything that had occurred before. His whole life was a continually
   strained protest against this false popular expectation. But when the
   Gospels mean to make known and describe to us most clearly this very
   struggle against the Jewish expectation we cannot suppose that they had
   yielded at the same time to the impulse to impute miracles to the Lord
   in abundance. People who transmit the words of Jesus, "that no sign
   shall be given except that of Jonas," cannot think of ascribing to him
   whom they thus make speak special miraculous deeds.

   These are the points which may be quoted as instances for the
   historical reality of the miracles of Jesus. This, however, cannot mean
   that each recorded miracle is guaranteed offhand in its historicity by
   such considerations. It is by no means precluded that in the tradition
   and in the conception of the eyewitnesses this or that fact got out of
   its place, and that a certain event was perceived and interpreted by
   them as an absolute miracle, without being entitled to such an
   estimate. But we may safely add, after what Jesus himself said on the
   importance of his miracles, that it matters not by any means whether
   each individual miraculous deed of Jesus took place just so, and is to
   be understood just so, as the narrative reads. For the objective
   ascertaining of a miracle we have no sure means at our disposal. On
   this or that event, which the first tradition perceived as miraculous,
   considerations may assert themselves; considerations, indeed, of a
   purely historical nature, which do not admit of a certain final
   decision. But all this does not affect the general result to which we
   have come. The purely historical use of the sources already brings the
   probability to the line of certainty that Jesus performed real
   miracles.

   Over against this general result we shall not omit to picture to
   ourselves some reflections against some miracle records which one
   cannot directly call unfounded. Those miracles of Jesus which were done
   on impersonal nature, without perceiving the motive of Jesus, or one
   otherwise answering to the attitude of Jesus have always caused special
   doubt. Such miracles would include the stilling .of the storm at sea,
   inasmuch as we may not assume that a real danger existed for the
   occupants of the boat; and Jesus himself could not doubt that the
   Father in heaven would not yet put an end to his work. In this case,
   was it really his word which quelled the storm, and did he bring it
   about in order to comfort the anxious disciples "of little faith"? We
   well understand this question; but it is not necessary to fall back
   upon this, that, on the supposition of the outer circumstances, the
   ceasing of the storm accidentally coincided with his commanding word,
   and the disciples explained this as a powerful deed. To us it rather
   seems that it was not at all against the known principles of Jesus to
   assist in such a condition the little faith of his faithful by powerful
   interference with the roaring elements. But how about the tribute money
   which he procured, and of which Matthew (17. 27) narrates? Did Jesus,
   indeed, have recourse to this means to procure for himself and Peter
   the small temple tax, since we may assume that at Capernaum, where this
   otherwise very credible narrative (verses 24, seq.) occurred, many a
   friend would have offered to him the small gift? But, above all things,
   is not the supposition plainly inconceivable that a fish which snapped
   at the glittering piece of money should, with the coin in its mouth,
   take the bait? Nevertheless if the event took place according to the
   wording of the texts, we have not a miracle of power, but a case of the
   miraculous knowledge of Jesus. But the suggestion is not to be rejected
   that in this narrative, which only belongs to the first Gospel, a
   shifting of the picture from recollection has taken place. We should
   find it entirely suitable to the view of Jesus when he said to Peter
   who was in straits for the tribute money: "Catch a big fish, and you
   have the necessary money; that is, what you require in your calling
   with little trouble you will certainly not refuse to the government,
   which has a right to demand!" Peter acted accordingly, and held in his
   hands an object which represented the tribute. In this manner the
   affair answers to the ethical sentiment of Jesus, whereas the
   assumption of a miraculous procuring of the tribute money would deprive
   the latter of its character and could with difficulty only be brought
   into harmony with the moral logic of the Lord. [1] This narrative
   offers a case which forces us to admit that the oral tradition in one
   single occurrence can only have shaped the miraculous character. The
   cursing of the fig tree (Matt. 21. 18-21; Mark 11. 12-14, 20-23) also
   causes a difficulty. The withering of the tree, according to Matthew,
   takes place at once before the eyes of the disciples; according to Mark
   the friend finds the accursed tree dried up in the evening. It has been
   pointed out, that such an incident cannot take place in the named
   season, not in the Easter, time, since at this time no fruits were to
   be expected on the tree. Such a hint is purposeless; there are many
   such exceptions in the life of nature, and here it is clearly stated,
   at all events, that the tree was covered with leaves, and thereby
   invited search for fruit. Even if this event is transferred to that
   autumn which Jesus spent at Jerusalem, of which John speaks in chapter
   7, the main difficulty is not yet touched at all; for this is contained
   in the serious question, whether it was worthy of the hungry Jesus to
   curse the tree because he was disappointed and to make of it an example
   of his miraculous power? To say the least, such a way of acting cannot
   be reconciled with the character of Jesus as revealed to us. In
   consideration of this, it is only an evasion to speak of a "symbolic
   miracle," by which the judgment which was to come over the city of
   Jerusalem was to be illustrated. Should one suppose this, then none of
   the narrators had understood the miracle, because neither of them has
   any reference to this coming judgment. Above all it is and remains
   remarkable, that for once the wondrous power of Jesus is used for a
   curse, whereas it is his very singularity to use it as a blessing. With
   this consideration, the wondrous power of the Lord is by no means
   called into question, who could also naturally have performed this
   miracle. It is an historic argument, the observation of the transmitted
   portrait of Jesus, whereby the supposition is suggested that we have to
   do here with a combination of an actual occurrence and a word of Jesus,
   like the parable . of the fruitless fig tree narrated only by Luke (13.
   6-9). That, in this wise, a miracle record took root in an oral
   tradition, is easily understood. Jesus and his disciples are near the
   city; he is hungry, sees a fig tree richly covered with leaves; he
   expects to find some fruit on it but finds it not. This tree, which
   disappointed him in his just hope, becomes to him a symbol of the
   capital which, in like manner, disappoints the religious hope; and he
   says, with reference to Jerusalem: "This fig tree, not bringing fruit,
   shall wither," just as in that parable he designates Israel as the
   fruitless fig tree, which is to be cut down. These examples are not
   intended to offer a sure decision on the respective miracle records,
   but that this only might become clear: that an impartial glance can
   meet with many difficulties which are fully intelligible and can be
   held in suspense without detriment to belief in the real, practical
   proof of the true wondrous power of Jesus.

   Let us turn to the religio-historical points of view. We hereby enter
   upon a very large and different territory, in which we must make a
   scanty selection. We meet with miracles in the religious and in the
   profane literature of the nations in great multitudes, and we are
   wholly skeptical of such tradition. In all fairness nothing entitles
   us, who impartially measure according to the like standard that which
   is historically handed down everywhere, to estimate the miracles of
   Jesus more favorably. In a religio-historical comparison the analogies
   are of the highest importance, and in miracle materials the analogies
   are especially strong. Through similarity in this point, the various
   religions seem to come very close to each other. All miracles seem to
   be written on the same line. Common religio-historical study follows
   the principle to explain all like or related phenomena in the different
   religions, if anywhere possible, from like causes; so also miracles. It
   regards all religious data as subjective. What is written in the sacred
   codices is considered as the product of religious feeling or judgment.
   If it is supposed that miracle legends originated in the desire to
   bring the supernatural near to the human mind, and that on this account
   the supernatural was added as an attribute to adored heroes, the
   principle requires of similarly actuated analogy that all miracles of
   which these religions speak were of like origin; that is, that without
   exception all must be regarded as the outcome of imagination to which
   there is no reality. The real motive of the miracle composing
   imagination is thus seen in the popular longing for a concrete
   apprehension and description of the supernatural, which is fed by a
   perfect mania for miracles. From the state of the gospel writings we
   have already pointed out .a number of signs which, according to our
   view, strongly support the historicity of several of the miracles of
   Jesus. The trend of the criticism which we oppose is to shake
   conviction in the historical reality of the Gospel miracles; and over
   against the alleged principle of the analogy referred to, a stringent
   scientific proof that the miracles of the Gospels are of different
   origin than the miracles in foreign religious traditions cannot, of
   course, be brought. This proof is just as little to be given absolutely
   as the proof for the correctness of the principle of the analogy which
   is only an hypothesis. But no one will assert that this principle,
   although it comprises a large field, is of universal validity. Everyone
   will rather admit that a limitless multitude of cases is conceivable
   which outwardly, indeed, appear as analogies but which owe their
   existence to entirely different causes; under the supposition of this
   possibility we will make the following observations: Just as we
   previously found instances for the historicity of the miracles of Jesus
   according to the records, we now affirm that the motive for miracle
   narratives must not be considered offhand as the sole and authoritative
   reason for the narrative without doing violence to historical truth.
   Two things must here be borne in mind. In the first place this motive
   cannot be spoken of as a mania for miracles in a degree that it blindly
   received everything which is recorded of miraculous things; in the
   second place, the majority of the extra-canonical miracles stand in a
   very different relation than the canonical.

   It sounds very strange that today we can. "no more" believe in
   miracles, whereas formerly such a belief was entirely in its proper
   place. One thing, indeed, seems to be evident, that the modern man in
   general is more opposed to the acceptance of a real miracle than the
   mark of the time of Jesus. But we must not forget that there is today
   also a playing with the miraculous which differs little from the mania
   for miracles of the past. And, when among us, not only the desire for
   appearances of dead persons and communication with them is publicly
   made known, but also the gratification of this want is promised, as it
   were, in a businesslike manner, is the like desire dictated by less
   mania for miracles than many things which we estimate so contemptibly
   in the thought of an age which in its naïvete had no idea of natural
   happenings conformable to law? This estimate is already made invalid by
   the mere existence of the notion of miracle. For when the ancient age
   possessed the idea of miracle it held it in opposition to the idea of
   regular laws of nature. The idea of miracle, be it ever so confused,
   always includes the thought of a conflict with natural law. Thus it is
   also very remarkable when one asserts that the contemporaries of Jesus
   were less strangely affected by the raising of a dead man than we
   moderns would be who know that the brazen law of nature retains in
   death whom it once has. The people of that time knew very well that the
   dead remains dead. After the burial of Lazarus, Mary, the sister of the
   deceased, who was intimately acquainted with Jesus, is not prepared for
   the idea that a resurrection is to take place. She, like those who were
   near her, thought, indeed, that Jesus could have cured the sick
   Lazarus; but the still unprecedented miracle on the dead they also
   regarded as impossible; and Martha wished to prevent the stone being
   taken from the grave (John 11. 32, 37, 39). In the Octavius of
   Minucius, Felix, the heathen, turns to the Christian and says: "I
   cannot agree to the return of the dead to life, for such a case only
   happened once, when Protesilaus, at the entreaties of his wife,
   returned for a few hours from the lower world." But this case he also
   ascribed to fictitious legend. A resuscitation of the dead is narrated
   of the great Pythagorean philosopher and itinerant preacher Apollonius
   of Tyana, which he performed at Rome. A girl from a noble house died on
   the day of her wedding and is carried out. (By the way, the similarity
   of the individual traits with the Gospel narrative of the raising of
   the widow's son at Nain is so great that the Apollonius story looks
   very much like an intended analogy.) Apollonius causes them to put down
   the bier. "He touches the dead, speaks a few unintelligible words, and
   raises her from the frame." The biographer, Philostratus, who is very
   skeptical as to this tradition, remarks (Vita Apollonii, iv. 45):
   "Whether he still found in her a spark of life which the physicians did
   not perceive--for it is said that the god had bedewed her, and from her
   face ascended a vapor--or whether he called back again the extinguished
   life and rekindled it, I am not able to ascertain, nor could they who
   were present." In the Octavius mentioned already, the heathen complains
   of the credulity of former generations, under whose fictions the
   education of youth is still suffering: "Our ancestors very gladly
   believed in lies. Without examination they accepted as true even
   monstrous prodigies like the Scylla, the Chimera, etc." What do the
   statements here put together prove? So much, at any rate, that at the
   very time when Christianity stepped in beside all trifling with the
   miraculous, skepticism also was a powerful factor in the mental life,
   and endeavored to cut the very ground from under the mania for
   miracles. Not only educated men, like the alleged authors, behave
   themselves in a critical manner toward miracles, but also the plain
   countrymen of Jesus were by no means especially disposed toward
   unprecedented miraculous events.

   But, in spite of all, the wonderful stories of former times eagerly
   prevailed and were readily believed by the mass. In the first place,
   probably the god of medicine Askelepios (or, Latin, "Æsculapius), the
   true "saviour" of the heathen who, as the son of a god and a human
   mother, of Apollo and Koronis, was endowed with a wonderful healing
   power. After he had been snatched away from the earth through the
   lightning of Zeus, on account of his raisings of the dead (of which ten
   are recorded) he still worked from divine heights, healed through the
   hand of priests by means of medicine, or recompensed with recovery
   pilgrimages to his sanctuaries. And this is only one example. There is
   no doubt that at that time also belief in miracles was diffused and a
   mania for miracles prevailed. Other instances could be quoted as
   supplemental; but not all must be placed to account, such as that
   miracles were also ascribed to Roman emperors, for it is extremely
   doubtful whether the miracles were at all believed by anyone, and were
   not, rather, an official tune of the cult of the Caesars. But whoever
   goes through history will find no reason to rate very high the hunger
   for miracles in the age of Christ. The mania for miracles is the
   constant companion of enlightenment; it is always a powerful factor in
   the mental life, only the manifestations are different now and then;
   and it must be doubtful whether among people who were educated after
   the pattern of the wisdom of the synagogue, or who had at least felt
   the breath of the wind from the wing-stroke of that great wisdom, that
   the disposition to believe in miracles had been exceptionally great. It
   is known that as never before the dogma of the Almighty God of creation
   was indeed emphasized in later Judaism, but that this belief
   exclusively referred to the creating act of the past, whereas,
   confident belief in the God who is present in the history of his
   people, and in individuals ever rules and works, had receded more and
   more. The God, whose name one did not pronounce, was also lost to the
   religious feeling; and, although this decay of religion was in the
   first place a production of theology, and the pious and retired ones in
   the country uninfluenced by it found edification in psalms and ancient
   prayers, it could not be prevented that the deistic view of the
   educated concerning the world and God encroached on the masses. This
   was also unavoidable, because the temple ceremonial changed in the
   direction of the transcendent. From all this it must also be evident
   that the Jewish generation of that time also was not greatly disposed
   to recognize events as miraculous works of God, and it is not without
   difficulty to expect of the first Christian generation that without
   cogent facts it twined a wreath of divine deeds around the Saviour who
   a short time ago still lived among them, and represented these miracles
   as the immediate effects of God himself, as is done in the fourth
   Gospel. The history of our mental life shows that in such situations
   all manner of superstition and mystery easily springs up, which at the
   first time meddle with the dark powers; but this is something very
   different from imputing to a historical person miraculous deeds which
   are said to have been wrought by a divine power and by a Divine Being.
   We have enough documents of that time pertaining to superstition and
   exorcism. At that time Jewish exorcists had especially acquired a
   certain reputation. Their formulas, which contained the names of the
   God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, according to the testimony of Origen
   (contra Celsum, iv. 33), were used by numerous non-Jewish magicians;
   and the "Solomonic" incantations were considered as especially
   efficacious. But we need only to think once more of the Apostle Paul to
   know how far removed even the Pharisaically educated man was from
   having recourse to the miracles of Jesus and thus also to the tendency
   of miracle fiction.

   If therefore, the greatest caution is required when, according to the
   analogy of the bulk of the heathenish miracles, One wishes to trace a
   Gospel miracle to the mania for miracles, the essential difference
   between the miracles of Jesus and those of other heroes must also be
   taken into consideration. In general, it is forcible. We recognize it
   in the first place by this, that the miracles of Jesus owe their origin
   entirely to divine love. No real miracle can be found in the Gospels
   which was not a miracle of mercy. In spite of some discrepancies in the
   account (Mark 6. 56) the person of the miracle-worker, as such, steps
   back, whereas the extra-ceremonial miracles are characterized by this,
   that they take place and are described in glorification of the
   miracle-worker; and, though they are also not entirely lacking the
   motive of compassionate love, the person of the miracle-worker always
   stands in the foreground, and the miracles obtain thereby a certain
   proper object.

   A few examples from a great mass of material may suffice. Let us
   commence with the miracles of the apocryphal gospel literature, and
   take the Gospel of Thomas, which purposes to fill the gap between the
   return of the carpenter's family from Egypt and the first visit to the
   temple by the child Jesus at the age of twelve. It commenced at once
   with two miracles of nature. "By his mere word," as we are expressly
   told, Jesus, five years old, makes muddy water, with which he played,
   clear; he then makes twelve sparrows of mud. When a Jew became angry
   because he thereby, desecrated the Sabbath, and being rebuked also by
   his father, the boy proves by a miracle that he did nothing wrong; he
   claps his hands and calls to the sparrows: "Fly away!" and off they
   went. The son of a scribe, who causes the water to run out which little
   Jesus had collected in puddles, he calls a blockhead, and impious
   fellow, and causes him to become withered. Another boy, who touches him
   by the shoulder whilst running, he causes to fall down dead, "for every
   word of his is a ready deed." To the reproacher, he replies that he
   only cures evildoers, but those become blind at once who reproached
   him. In this way it goes on. Here we have the grossest contrast to
   canonical literature. These are divine childish tricks by which the
   person is to be exalted. All who do not already perceive the God in the
   child must die. The Buddha child too, is already wonderfully bright
   after his birth. The newly born announces with a lion's voice his
   calling: "I am the sublimest, the best in the world! This is my last
   birth. I will make an end to birth, age, sickness, death." At this
   follow miracle after miracle. Buddha's very unique knowledge is always
   praised. Buddha says it himself: "It is manifest unto me what occupies
   your mind; you cannot deceive me."

   Real marvelous knowledge is recorded in numerous cases of Jesus;
   however, no real marvelous knowledge of human beings is transmitted,
   but, indeed, a surprisingly clear knowledge of human thoughts and
   opinions, which, according to the analogy, we are even able to
   comprehend, so that it is not properly miraculous. Jesus only manifests
   a foreknowledge of his divine calling, of the kingdom of God; but here,
   too, only in great lines, refusing the knowledge of details. His
   extraordinary knowledge is of a purely prophetical kind. The knowledge
   of Buddha is magical, even the cures of Buddha lie also in an entirely
   different sphere, and are evidently intended to glorify the person of
   the hero; thus he gives to a prince, whose hands and feet were cut off,
   and whose prayer he hears in a distance through a message by means of
   the sacred formulas, the full possession of his members, and the healed
   shows at once a superhuman power. Buddha could also cause a fearful
   earthquake by stamping the ground. In these traits which are wanting in
   the Jesus picture of the Gospels, we feel at once the greatness of the
   contrast. It is not otherwise with Apollonius of Tyana. Like Buddha, he
   heals by special perceptive means or charms. "Æsculapius, too, used for
   his cures sundry means; prescribed medicine; afterward the patients had
   to sleep in his temples and follow the direction of the dreams which
   they had there. It is not the divine omnipotence which worked there; we
   meet with a jumble of the sensually natural and supernatural.
   Apollonius cannot only banish a ghost, but needs the coöperation of
   shouting men (Vita Apollonii, 7). When he wishes to deliver the city of
   Ephesus from the pestilence he leads the inhabitants to the statue of
   Apotrapacus, the calamity-averting Hercules. He also applies a morally
   very doubtful measure; he causes the stoning of an old man, who is to
   bear the cause of the epidemic; afterward, however, not a human corpse
   but a big dead dog is found (Vita Apollonii, iv, 11). A man suffering
   hydrophobia, he causes to be cured by the dog which bit him (Ibid., vi.
   43). He is very superstitious; he touches the incense flames, when
   their flickering seems favorable (Ibid., i, 31). Besides, an absolutely
   wonderful knowledge is ascribed to him. He knows the language of every
   nation without having studied it; from small outward events he twice
   prophesies the short reign of the three soldier-emperors, Galba, Otho,
   Vitellius. At Ephesus he suddenly stops in the conversation and sees,
   experiencing it himself, how at the very minute Domitian is murdered in
   Rome (Ibid., i, 19; v, 11-13; viii, 26). Of Apollonius, as of his great
   master, Pythagoras (in the biography composed by Jamblichus), it is
   reported that he was able to be in many places at one and the same
   time, or to transfer himself with celerity to another place. Such magic
   freedom from limits of space and material existence, is also ascribed
   to Buddha.

   In our Gospels such traits are not found, unless one understands in
   this sense the walking of Jesus on the sea.

   In conclusion, let us turn once again to an apocryphal writing, the
   Acts of Peter, where the strangest things are told of their hero; he
   has the power to revive a pickled herring; at his command a suckling
   announces with a loud voice the impending judgment on Simon Magus, and
   challenges him to a contest in performing miracles. Even the contest is
   described, and this very fact in its pregnant form, allows us to
   perceive the signature of the heathenish miracle view. The alleged
   examples make it clear how in extra-canonical sources all miracles are
   recorded with the view of extolling the person of the hero. Like a
   contention for the divinely glorified person, it often affects us,
   indeed, when he is raised beyond the level of the human, whereas, on
   the other hand, the life of the respective individual betrays nothing
   of the divine. This is the unique peculiarity of the extra-canonical
   miracle records: that the miracles do not harmonize with the type of
   the acting persons. The superhuman is there only too deeply buried in
   that which is altogether too human, and comes forth from the latter
   like something that should not be. When the extremely acute Apollonius,
   who was endowed with superhuman knowledge, is involved in different
   popular superstitions, when he even applies immoral means in his
   miraculous help, we become confused. It is bad inconsistency which we
   find in the view forming the basis of such records. The heathenish
   "saviours" are said to perform cures which defy every human medical
   science; but when they apply to these divine deeds the genuinely human
   means of medicine, magic, and incantations, ceremonial washings, etc.,
   this, too, is an inconsistency which allows us to see how the whole
   picture comes from the view of those who designed it. This
   inconsistency of view is not perceptible in the Gospels. Here, as we
   have seen, the miracles of Jesus appear as the true consequence of the
   entire being and calling of Jesus. To the other "heroes" the miraculous
   adheres like an official gown, like an ornament or insignia. Christ's
   personal life and work is a miracle. They were magnified through the
   miracles; Christ is so great that the miracle becomes small in
   comparison with him. [2] And, whereas in the heathen miracle narratives
   the heroes act from a certain egotistical fullness of heart, and gladly
   exhibit miraculous gift, we find nothing of this in the portrait of
   Jesus in the Gospels.

   Unspeakably great is the contrast of this simple and sublime
   personality with all world heroes, all legendary lords and saviours of
   mythology. He, Jesus the Christ and Lord of men, rises above all and
   yet in our endeavor to fully apprehend him he gladly remains in secret
   with his deeds of love and service.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1] The author here makes a concession wholly unnecessary.--Editor.

   [2] Seeberg, Grundwahrheiten der Christlichen Religion, p. 50.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

                                    Indexes
     __________________________________________________________________

Index of Scripture References

   Matthew

   [1]9:4-5   [2]9:5   [3]9:6   [4]9:33   [5]9:34   [6]11:2-6   [7]12:23
   [8]12:28   [9]12:33-34   [10]12:38-45   [11]12:38-45   [12]12:39
   [13]12:40   [14]12:40   [15]12:42   [16]16:1   [17]16:1-28
   [18]16:13-14   [19]16:18-19   [20]17:24-27   [21]17:27   [22]21:18-21
   [23]21:23-32

   Mark

   [24]1:33-39   [25]2:3-13   [26]2:10   [27]6:56   [28]8:27-28
   [29]9:23   [30]11:12-14   [31]11:20-23

   Luke

   [32]4:23-27   [33]4:42-44   [34]11:14-15   [35]11:30   [36]13:6-9
   [37]16:31

   John

   [38]2:11   [39]2:23   [40]4:20-29   [41]4:34   [42]4:36   [43]4:48
   [44]6:1-71   [45]6:25-26   [46]6:27   [47]6:33   [48]6:35   [49]6:36
   [50]6:66   [51]6:67-68   [52]7:1-53   [53]7:17   [54]7:26-31
   [55]9:3   [56]9:3   [57]10:32-38   [58]11:4   [59]11:5   [60]11:15
   [61]11:32   [62]11:37   [63]11:39   [64]11:42   [65]11:42   [66]11:45
   [67]14:11   [68]15:22   [69]15:24   [70]20:29
     __________________________________________________________________

Index of Pages of the Print Edition

   [71]1  [72]2  [73]3  [74]4  [75]5  [76]6  [77]7  [78]8  [79]9  [80]10
   [81]11  [82]12  [83]13  [84]14  [85]15  [86]16  [87]17  [88]18  [89]19
   [90]20  [91]21  [92]22  [93]23  [94]24  [95]25  [96]26  [97]27  [98]28
   [99]29  [100]30  [101]31  [102]32  [103]33  [104]34  [105]35  [106]36
   [107]37  [108]38  [109]39  [110]40  [111]41  [112]42  [113]43  [114]44
   [115]45  [116]46  [117]47  [118]48  [119]49  [120]50  [121]51  [122]52
   [123]53  [124]54  [125]55  [126]56  [127]57  [128]58  [129]59  [130]60
   [131]61  [132]62  [133]63  [134]64  [135]65  [136]66  [137]67  [138]68
   [139]69  [140]70  [141]71  [142]72  [143]73  [144]74  [145]75  [146]76
   [147]77
     __________________________________________________________________

            This document is from the Christian Classics Ethereal
               Library at Calvin College, http://www.ccel.org,
                   generated on demand from ThML source.

References

   1. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=9&scrV=4#iii.iii-p3.3
   2. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=9&scrV=5#iii.iii-p3.1
   3. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=9&scrV=6#iii.iii-p3.1
   4. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=9&scrV=33#iii.ii-p2.4
   5. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=9&scrV=34#iii.ii-p2.4
   6. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=11&scrV=2#iii.ii-p10.2
   7. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=12&scrV=23#iii.ii-p2.3
   8. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=12&scrV=28#iii.ii-p12.3
   9. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=12&scrV=33#iii.ii-p12.1
  10. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=12&scrV=38#iii.ii-p5.1
  11. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=12&scrV=38#iii.ii-p24.4
  12. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=12&scrV=39#iii.ii-p5.2
  13. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=12&scrV=40#iii.ii-p6.1
  14. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=12&scrV=40#iii.ii-p6.2
  15. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=12&scrV=42#iii.ii-p8.1
  16. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=16&scrV=1#iii.ii-p5.3
  17. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=16&scrV=1#iii.ii-p25.3
  18. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=16&scrV=13#iii.ii-p25.5
  19. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=16&scrV=18#iii.iii-p3.2
  20. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=17&scrV=24#iii.iii-p6.2
  21. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=17&scrV=27#iii.iii-p6.1
  22. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=21&scrV=18#iii.iii-p6.5
  23. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=21&scrV=23#iii.ii-p7.1
  24. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=1&scrV=33#iii.ii-p11.1
  25. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=2&scrV=3#iii.ii-p13.1
  26. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=2&scrV=10#iii.ii-p13.2
  27. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=6&scrV=56#iii.iii-p10.1
  28. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=8&scrV=27#iii.ii-p25.6
  29. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=9&scrV=23#iii.ii-p16.1
  30. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=11&scrV=12#iii.iii-p6.6
  31. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=11&scrV=20#iii.iii-p6.6
  32. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=4&scrV=23#iii.ii-p10.1
  33. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=4&scrV=42#iii.ii-p11.2
  34. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=11&scrV=14#iii.ii-p12.2
  35. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=11&scrV=30#iii.ii-p6.3
  36. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=13&scrV=6#iii.iii-p6.8
  37. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=16&scrV=31#iii.ii-p9.1
  38. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=2&scrV=11#iii.ii-p2.5
  39. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=2&scrV=23#iii.ii-p2.2
  40. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=4&scrV=20#iii.ii-p21.2
  41. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=4&scrV=34#iii.ii-p21.1
  42. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=4&scrV=36#iii.ii-p21.3
  43. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=4&scrV=48#iii.ii-p23.1
  44. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=6&scrV=1#iii.ii-p25.2
  45. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=6&scrV=25#iii.ii-p24.1
  46. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=6&scrV=27#iii.ii-p24.6
  47. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=6&scrV=33#iii.ii-p24.2
  48. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=6&scrV=35#iii.ii-p24.3
  49. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=6&scrV=36#iii.ii-p24.5
  50. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=6&scrV=66#iii.ii-p2.6
  51. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=6&scrV=67#iii.ii-p25.4
  52. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=7&scrV=1#iii.iii-p6.7
  53. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=7&scrV=17#iii.ii-p24.7
  54. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=7&scrV=26#iii.ii-p2.2
  55. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=9&scrV=3#iii.ii-p17.1
  56. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=9&scrV=3#iii.ii-p25.1
  57. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=10&scrV=32#iii.ii-p20.1
  58. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=11&scrV=4#iii.ii-p18.1
  59. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=11&scrV=5#iii.ii-p18.1
  60. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=11&scrV=15#iii.ii-p17.2
  61. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=11&scrV=32#iii.iii-p8.1
  62. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=11&scrV=37#iii.iii-p8.1
  63. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=11&scrV=39#iii.iii-p8.1
  64. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=11&scrV=42#iii.ii-p17.3
  65. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=11&scrV=42#iii.ii-p19.1
  66. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=11&scrV=45#iii.ii-p2.1
  67. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=14&scrV=11#iii.ii-p20.2
  68. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=15&scrV=22#iii.ii-p22.2
  69. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=15&scrV=24#iii.ii-p22.1
  70. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=20&scrV=29#iii.ii-p23.2
  71. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#i-Page_1
  72. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#i-Page_2
  73. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#ii-Page_3
  74. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#ii-Page_4
  75. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#ii-Page_5
  76. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.i-Page_6
  77. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.i-Page_7
  78. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.i-Page_8
  79. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.i-Page_9
  80. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.i-Page_10
  81. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.ii-Page_11
  82. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.ii-Page_12
  83. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.ii-Page_13
  84. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.ii-Page_14
  85. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.ii-Page_15
  86. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.ii-Page_16
  87. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.ii-Page_17
  88. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.ii-Page_18
  89. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.ii-Page_19
  90. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.ii-Page_20
  91. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.ii-Page_21
  92. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.ii-Page_22
  93. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.ii-Page_23
  94. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.ii-Page_24
  95. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.ii-Page_25
  96. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.ii-Page_26
  97. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.ii-Page_27
  98. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.ii-Page_28
  99. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.ii-Page_29
 100. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.ii-Page_30
 101. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.ii-Page_31
 102. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.ii-Page_32
 103. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.ii-Page_33
 104. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.ii-Page_34
 105. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.ii-Page_35
 106. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.ii-Page_36
 107. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.ii-Page_37
 108. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.ii-Page_38
 109. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.ii-Page_39
 110. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.ii-Page_40
 111. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.ii-Page_41
 112. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.ii-Page_42
 113. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.ii-Page_43
 114. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.ii-Page_44
 115. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.ii-Page_45
 116. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.ii-Page_46
 117. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.ii-Page_47
 118. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.iii-Page_48
 119. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.iii-Page_49
 120. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.iii-Page_50
 121. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.iii-Page_51
 122. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.iii-Page_52
 123. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.iii-Page_53
 124. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.iii-Page_54
 125. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.iii-Page_55
 126. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.iii-Page_56
 127. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.iii-Page_57
 128. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.iii-Page_58
 129. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.iii-Page_59
 130. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.iii-Page_60
 131. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.iii-Page_61
 132. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.iii-Page_62
 133. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.iii-Page_63
 134. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.iii-Page_64
 135. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.iii-Page_65
 136. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.iii-Page_66
 137. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.iii-Page_67
 138. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.iii-Page_68
 139. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.iii-Page_69
 140. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.iii-Page_70
 141. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.iii-Page_71
 142. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.iii-Page_72
 143. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.iii-Page_73
 144. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.iii-Page_74
 145. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.iii-Page_75
 146. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.iii-Page_76
 147. file:///ccel/b/beth/miracles/cache/miracles.html3#iii.iii-Page_77