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.The author here makes a concession wholly unnecessary.--Editor. 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.Seeberg, Grundwahrheiten der Christlichen Religion,
p. 50. 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.