MIRACLES
difficulty.
One
may
hesitate
about
accepting
the
statement
about
the
miracles
wrought
by
Peter's
shadow
(5")
or
Paul's
aprons
(19'=).
What
are
rep-resented
as
miraculous
deliverances
from
imprison-ment
are
reported
both
of
Peter
(12»)
and
of
Paul
{16«).
Paul's
escape
from
the
viper
(28^)
does
not
necessarily
involve
a
miracle.
These
miracles,
which,
talcen
by
themselves
as
reported
in
Acts,
there
might
be
some
hesitation
in
beUeving,
become
more
credible
when
viewed
as
the
continuation
of
the
supernatural
power
of
Christ
in
His
Church
for
the
confirmation
of
the
faith
of
those
to
whom
the
gospel
was
entrusted,
and
also
those
to
whom
its
appeal
was
first
addressed.
In
this
matter
the
Epistles
of
Paul
confirm
the
record
of
Acts
(1
Co
12i»-
28,
2
Co
1212).
paul
claims
this
super-natural
power
for
himself,
and
recognizes
its
presence
in
the
Church.
(c)
We
cannot
claim
to
have
contemporary
evidence
of
the
miracles
of
the
OT,
as
we
have
of
those
of
the
NT.
The
miracles
are
almost
entirely
cormected
either
with
the
Exodus
from
Egypt,
or
with
the
ministry
of
Elijah
and
of
Elisha.
The
majority
of
the
miracles
of
the
first
group
are
not
outside
of
the
order
of
nature;
what
is
extraordinary
in
them
Is
their
coincidence
with
the
prophetic
declaration,
this
constituting
the
events
signs
of
the
Divine
revelation.
While
the
miracles
ascribed
to
Ehjah
and
Ehsha
might
be
considered
as
their
credentials,
yet
they
cannot
be
regarded
as
essential
to
their
prophetic
ministry;
and
the
variations
with
which
they
are
recorded
represent
popular
traditions
which
the
compiler
of
the
Books
of
Kings
has
incorporated
without
any
substantial
alteration.
The
record
of
the
standing
still
of
the
sun
in
Gibeon
is
obviously
a
prosaic
misinterpretation
of
a
poetic
phrase
(Jos
lO'^-")
;
behind
the
record
of
the
bringing
back
of
the
shadow
on
the
dial
of
Ahaz
(2
K
20")
we
may
assume
some
unusual
atmospheric
phenomenon,
refracting
the
rays
of
the
sun;
the
speech
of
Balaam's
ass
(Nu
22^')
may
be
regarded
as
an
objectifying
by
the
seer
of
his
own
scruples,
doubts,
and
fears;
the
Book
of
Jonah
is
now
interpreted
not
literally,
but
figuratively;
the
Book
of
Daniel
is
not
now
generally
taken
as
history,
but
rather
as
the
em-beUishment
of
history
for
the
purposes
of
edification.
The
revelation
of
Jehovah
to
Israel
is
seen
in
the
prov-idential
guidance
and
guardianship
of
His
people
by
God,
and
in
the
authoritative
interpretation
of
God's
worlis
and
ways
by
the
prophets,
and
in
it
miracle,
in
the
strict
sense
of
the
word,
has
a
small
place.
Wliile
the
moral
and
religious
worth
of
the
OT,
as
the
hterature
of
the
Divine
revelation
completed
in
Christ,
demands
a
respectful
treatment
of
the
narratives
of
miracles,
we
are
bound
to
apply
two
tests:
the
sufficiency
of
the
evidence,
and
the
congruity
of
the
miracle
in
character
with
the
Divine
revelation.
2.
The
evidence.
—
In
dealing
with
the
evidence
for
the
miracles
the
starting-point
should
be
the
Besurrec-tion.
It
is
admitted
that
the
beUef
that
Jesus
had
risen
prevailed
in
the
Christian
Church
from
the
very
beginning
of
its
history;
that
without
this
belief
the
Church
would
never
have
come
into
existence.
Harnack
seeks
to
distinguish
the
Easter
message
about
the
empty
grave
and
the
appearances
of
Jesus
from
the
Easter
faith
that
Jesus
lives:
but
he
is
not
successful
in
showing
how
the
former
could
have
come
to
be,
apart
from
the
latter.
No
attempt
to
explain
the
conversion
of
Paul
without
admitting
the
objective
manifestation
of
Christ
as
risen
can
be
regarded
as
satisfactory.
It
may
not
be
possible
absolutely
to
harmonize
in
every
detail
the
records
of
the
appearances,
but
before
these
narratives
were
written
it
was
the
common
belief
of
the
Christian
Church,
as
Paul
testifies,
'that
Christ
died
for
our
sins
according
to
the
Scriptures,
and
that
he
was
buried,
and
that
he
hath
been
raised
on
the
third
day
according
to
the
Scriptures'
(1
Co
15'-
').
If
the
Resurrection
of
Christ
is
proved,
this
fact,
con-joined
with
His
absolutely
unique
moral
character
and
MIRACLES
religious
consciousness,
invests
the
Person
of
Jesus
with
a
supernaturalness
which
forbids
our
limiting
the
actions
possible
to
Him
by
the
normal
human
tests.
His
miracles
are
not
wonders,
for
it
is
no
wonder
that
He
should
so
act,
but
signs,
proofs
of
what
He
is,
and
works,
congruous
with
His
character
as
'ever
doing
good,'
and
His
purpose
to
reveal
the
grace
of
the
Father.
Harnack
will
not
'reject
peremptorily
as
illusion
that
lame
walked,
blind
saw,
and
deaf
heard,'
but
he
will
not
believe
that
'a
stormy
sea
was
stilled
by
a
word.'
The
miracles
of
heaUng
are
not
all
ex-pUcable,
as
he
supposes,
by
what
Matthew
Arnold
called
moral
therapeutics
—
the
influence
of
a
strong
personahty
over
those
suffering
from
nerve
disorders,
as
they
embrace
diseases
of
which
the
cure
by
any
such
means
is
quite
incredible;
and
the
evidence
for
the
cosmic
miracles,
as
the
miracles
showing
power
over
nature
apart
from
man
have
been
called,
is
quite
as
good
as
for
the
healing
miracles.
It
the
Synoptic
Gospels
can
be
dated
between
a.d.
60
and
90,
as
is
coming
to
be
admitted
by
scholars
generally,
the
evi-dence
for
the
miracles
of
Jesus
is
thoroughly
satis-factory;
the
mythical
theory
of
Strauss
must
assume
a
much
longer
interval.
Harnack
regards
as
'
a
demon-strated
fact'
that
'Luke,
companion
in
travel
and
associate
in
evangelistic
work
of
Paul,'
is
the
author
of
the
Third
Gospel
and
the
Acts;
nevertheless
he
does
not
consider
Luke's
history
as
true;
but
Ramsay
argues
that
the
Lukan
authorship
carries
with
it
sub-stantial
accuracy.
In
his
various
writings
he
has
endeavoured
to
show
how
careful
a
historian
Luke
is,
and
if
Luke's
excellence
in
this
respect
is
estabUshed,
then
we
can
place
greater
reliance
on
the
evidence
for
miracles
in
the
early
Church,
as
well
as
in
the
ministry
of
Jesus.
Harnack
lays
great
stress
on
the
credulity
of
the
age
in
which
the
Gospels
were
written;
but
this
credulity
was
not
universal.
The
educated
classes
were
sceptical;
and,
to
judge
Luke
from
the
preface
to
his
Gospel,
he
appears
as
one
who
recognized
the
duty
of
careful
inquiry,
and
of
testing
evidence.
The
miracles
of
the
Gospels
and
the
Acts
are
closely
con-nected
with
the
Person
of
Jesus,
as
the
Word
Incarnate
and
the
risen
Lord,
and
the
credulity
of
the
age
does
not
come
into
consideration
unless
it
can
be
shown
that
among
either
the
Jews
or
the
Gentiles
there
was
a
prejudice
favourable
to
belief
in
the
Incarnation
and
the
Resurrection.
The
character
of
the
miracles,
so
harmonious
with
the
Person,
forbids
our
ascribing
them
to
the
wonder-loving,
and
therefore
wonder-
making,
tendency
of
the
times.
Some
indications
have
already
been
given
in
regard
to
the
evidence
for
the
miracles
of
the
OT.
The
fre-quent
references
to
the
deliverance
from
Egypt
made
in
the
subsequent
hterature
attest
the
historical
reality
of
that
series
of
events;
and
it
cannot
be
said
to
be
improbable
that
signs
should
have
accompanied
such
a
Divine
intervention
in
human
history.
Some
of
the
miracles
ascribed
to
EUsba
are
not
of
a
character
con-gruous
with
the
function
of
prophecy;
but
it
may
be
that
we
should
very
cautiously
apply
our
sense
of
fitness
as
a
test
of
truth
to
these
ancient
narratives.
In
the
OT
history.
Prophecy
(wh.
see)
was
the
supernatural
feature
of
deepest
significance
and
highest
value.
3.
Explanations.
—
Admitting
that
the
evidence
is
satisfactory,
and
the
miracles
are
real,
what
explana-tions
can
be
offered
of
them?
(a)
One
suggestion
has
already
been
considered;
it
is
favoured
by
Harnack
and
Matthew
Arnold:
it
is
that
one
person
may
exercise
over
another
so
strong
an
influence
as
to
cure
nervous
disorders.
The
inadequacy
of
this
explanation
has
been
shown;
but
even
were
it
admissible,
a
reason
would
need
to
be
given
why
Jesus
used
a
means
not
known
in
His
age,
and
thus
anticipated
modern
develop-ments
of
medical
skill.
It
is
certain
that
Jesus
worked
His
miracles
relying
on
the
Divine
powers
in
Himself;
