The Miracles of Jesus

ev-uh-lin Ashley

Audio by Paper2Audio.

Exclusive of parallels, the gospels record Jesus performing over thirty miracles. Additionally, there are numerous summary statements that refer to Jesus performing miracles, especially healings and exorcisms. These accounts are distributed through all strata of the gospel material—in both Mark and Q as well as in material found exclusively in Matthew, or Luke, or John. Thus the miracle stories are an integral part of the gospel accounts of Jesus' life and as such cannot be ignored.

However, these miracle stories form a topic on which there are significant differences of opinion. For some, Jesus' miracles are simply taken for granted; for others the whole concept of miracles is a matter for debate. Much of the discussion, and thus much of the written material, revolves around four questions.

First, there is the philosophical question: Can miracles happen and do they happen? These are underlying questions, the answers to which will impact the answers to all the other questions regarding Jesus' miracles. If it is concluded that miracles cannot happen, then clearly there must be some explanation for the stories of Jesus' miracles other than that they were real miracles that actually occurred. On the other hand, if it is accepted that miracles can occur, then it becomes possible at least to consider that the stories of Jesus' miracles go back to real events.

Second, there is the historical question: Did Jesus' miracles occur? Even if it is conceded that miracles can occur, there is still the question of whether the stories presented in the gospels are historically accurate. Were the miracles stories created by the early church to make a point? Or are the gospel accounts embellishments of real events or stories about the types of things Jesus did but not reports of specific events? Or did the miracles in fact occur as they are recorded in the gospels?

Third, there is the literary question: What did the evangelists intend when they narrated the miracles of Jesus? Clearly, any interpretation of the evangelists' intent will be significantly impacted by the conclusions arrived at for the previous two questions. If the stories are regarded as historically accurate, or at least based on historical reality, then the intent of the evangelists will be understood very differently than if the stories are regarded as fictional or mythical.

And finally, there is the theological question: What is the significance of Jesus' miracles? This poses two further questions: What was Jesus' own understanding of the miracles? and what was the understanding of the early church, including those who wrote the gospels? These questions have a significant overlap with the previous group of questions, but they lead into a third question: What is—or perhaps, what should be—our understanding of, and thus our response to, the miracle stories?

This chapter will consider each of these questions in turn, briefly surveying the various types of answers that have been given to each.

$ ^{1} $ It is outside the scope of this chapter to discuss the miracles of which Jesus was the subject, that is, his birth, baptism, transfiguration and resurrection.

$ ^{2} $ Without entering the discussion regarding the possible existence, composition, history, etc. of “Q,” it can, at a minimum, be used as a shorthand designation for the material that is common to Matthew and Luke, but not found in Mark.

$ ^{3} $ The bibliography at the end of this chapter provides a small sample of what has been written on the topic and forms a starting point for further research. Most of the entries include bibliographies which widen the scope for research.

A. The Philosophical Question: Can Miracles Happen?

While there have always been some who have questioned the possibility of miracles and thus the reality of Jesus' miracles, for most of the history of the church Jesus' miracles, as recorded in the gospels, have been taken for granted. This, however, changed significantly with the coming of the Enlightenment and the rise of Rationalism and Empiricism. The questioning of the possibility of miracles and, in turn, the reliability of the biblical accounts of miracles became not only permissible, but widespread.

In coming to a conclusion regarding the possibility, or otherwise, of miracles, two factors are significant: (1) the chosen definition of “miracle,” and (2) the person's underlying worldview. The interplay of these two factors can be seen in the various views presented below.

Benedict Spinoza was an early Rationalist whose Theologico-Political Treatise (1670) was circulated in the late seventeenth century. He espoused a pantheistic view of God, understanding God and the universe to be of the same substance. He concluded that it was impossible for miracles to occur because it was impossible for God to act outside of creation. Spinoza understood the laws of nature to be the result of God's will, so for God to intervene in the laws of nature would be for God to violate his own will, something that was not possible. His definition of miracles as “violations” of “natural laws” which are “immutable,” and thus contrary to the “will of God,” made the possibility of miracles appear irrational. Geisler summarizes Spinoza's argument against miracles in this fashion:

1. Miracles are violations of natural laws.

2. Natural laws are immutable.

3. It is impossible to violate immutable laws.

4. Therefore, miracles are impossible.

Spinoza's rationalistic, deterministic, and pantheistic presuppositions meant that the only conclusion he could come to was that miracles could not happen.

Perhaps the best known writer on the topic of the possibility of miracles is David Hume (1711 to 1776). Much of what has been written on the topic of miracles in the last two hundred and fifty years has, in one way or another, been written in response to his argument. In his Enquiry Concerning the Human Understanding he included a section entitled “Of Miracles,” which had the purpose of denying both the possibility of miracles and the possibility of determining that a miracle had occurred.

Instead of the rationalistic approach taken by Spinoza, Hume took an empirical approach in which the relationship between cause and effect was integral to his argument. From repeated experience, people conclude that certain events will happen in a predictable way. For example, it is not possible to be certain that the sun will rise tomorrow, but the experiential evidence is so strong that it is reasonable to believe that it will rise and foolish to believe that it will not.

This “uniform experience” reaches the level where there is no room for doubt. By contrast, the evidence for miracles can never be strong enough to conclude that a miracle has occurred because “uniform experience” indicates that they do not. Geisler summarizes his argument thus:

1. A miracle is by definition a rare occurrence.

2. Natural law is by definition a description of regular occurrence.

3. The evidence for the regular is always greater than that for the rare.

4. Wise individuals always base belief on the greater evidence.

5. Therefore, wise individuals should never believe in miracles.

Once again assumptions have played a key role in the outcome of the argument. Because, generally, experience is strongly against miracles, Hume assumed that there can never be enough evidence to support the occurrence of a miracle. It was logical to assume therefore that all reports of miracles must be false. But as Collins concludes:

From a literary point of view, Hume's reasoning overlooks one very important fact, namely, the normal reason for telling a story is to report "interesting" or "tellable" events, not the usual ones. This means that a narrative will not be about what we all know about already. This leads to another flaw in Hume's case: a consistent application of Hume's ideas would

have us doubting all historical accounts of unusual things.

In addition to arguing that the amount of evidence was insufficient to support belief in miracles, Hume also argued that the kind of testimony given in favor of miracles was insufficient. In his estimation, not enough people of “good sense, education, learning, integrity, and reputation” had witnessed any particular miracle in history for the evidence to be taken seriously, nor had miracles been performed “in such a public manner and in so celebrated part of the world, as to render detection unavoidable.” He noted that reports of miracles are more prevalent among “ignorant and barbarous” people and concluded that “civilized” people only believed in miracles when they had received the accounts from their “ignorant and barbarous ancestors.” Consequently, according to these criteria, the only accounts of history of any kind that could be regarded as reliable are those which came from large urban centers of the Western world in the last few centuries.

C. S. Lewis sought to counter Hume's argument in the following way. For Lewis the issue was not how much evidence or what type of evidence there might be for any given miracle, but rather the way in which the evidence was approached. This led him to define a miracle differently to Hume as “an interference with Nature by supernatural power.” For him, a miracle did not set aside nature or break the laws of nature. Rather he understood God to be acting to initiate a miracle. The principles of nature continue to work in a way that is analogous to the actions of a human's altering of the course of nature, though on a lesser scale.

Lewis saw a category of some of Jesus' miracles as parallel to the way God acts in nature. He labeled miracles such as the feeding of the five thousand, the turning of water into wine, and healings as"Miracles of the Old Creation" since, as he puts it,"they reproduce what we experience in the natural order." On the other hand, Lewis labeled miracles such as the raising of Lazarus and of Jairus's daughter, Jesus walking on water and Jesus' resurrection as"Miracles of the New Creation," as these were not things that could happen through natural processes but heralded a new order, a new creation. But he did not view these as random events or violations of the order of nature.

More recently Corner has argued that understanding miracles as “interventions” implies that God is only active in miracles and not at other times. He differentiates between “general divine action” and “special divine action.” He defines “general divine action” as “those actions of God that pertain to the whole of creation universally and simultaneously—effectively God's action in creating and sustaining the world." “Special divine action” is the activity of God that pertains “to one particular time and place as opposed to another.” This understanding leads him to define what are commonly termed “miracles,” not in terms of “unnatural acts” which violate the laws of nature, but as special or immediate acts of God, which are beneficial or religiously significant, in contrast to his ongoing work of creating and sustaining the world.

This acknowledges that some events generally described as miracles, such as a particularly fortuitous sequence of events, do not contravene any known “laws” but may still be the result of the special working of God. He points out that our understanding of the “laws of nature” is constantly changing. An event that appears to be a miracle may be the working of a “law” which, as yet, we do not understand. Key to this understanding of “miracle” is that it is something that is both “beneficial” and “religiously significant.” It is something that points the recipient towards God.

With increased knowledge of other cultures, it has become apparent that those in other times and cultures are no more gullible than those in modern Western society, and their views cannot simply be dismissed as the result of ignorance or superstition. Western rationalism, with its insistence on “scientific” explanations in terms of cause and effect, is not the only way of viewing the world. Even Western science has come to realize that there are many things which, at least at present, defy rationalistic explanation. All this has led to a broadening in perceptions and worldviews that affects openness to the possibility of miracles.

It would appear, then, that the answer a person gives to the question: “Can miracles occur?” is one which depends more on their presuppositions and worldview than it does on empirical evidence. Reports of miracles are like any record of past events: they cannot be “proven” in the usual sense, rather the evidence must be weighed and conclusions drawn. Ultimately it is a matter of faith—for the atheist and the agnostic as much as for the believer.

It is a choice, an act of faith, to decide to believe we live in a closed system with inviolable laws where miracles cannot happen, just as it is a choice, an act of faith, to decide to believe there is a God, or at least some form of higher being who can, and perhaps even does, act in unusual and extraordinary ways in our world. I concur with Brown who writes:

Left to her own devices, we would expect nature to behave normally. Nature could not do anything other than that. But if God is God, and if God is the author of nature, then occasionally, when it suits his purpose, we might have to reckon with God's doing things that we had never seen before.

$ ^{4} $C. John Collins, The God of Miracles: An Exegetical Examination of God's Action in the World (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2000), p. 162.

$ ^{5} $ Norman L. Geisler, Miracles and the Modern Mind (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), p. 15.

$ ^{6} $ The first edition was published in 1748, with a second published posthumously in 1777. In addition to a number of reprints of the whole work, the section “Of Miracles” has been reprinted in part or in whole in numerous publications.

$ ^{7} $ Geisler, Miracles, pp. 27-28.

$ ^{8} $C. J. Collins, God of Miracles, p. 167.

David Hume, Enquiries Concerning the Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals, reprinted from the posthumous edition of 1777 and edited with Introduction, Comparative Table of Contents, and Analytical Index by L. A. Selby-Bigge (London: Clarendon Press, 1975), pp. 116-17.

$ ^{10} $ Hume, Enquiries, p. 119.

$ ^{11} $ C. S. Lewis, Miracles (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1947), p. 15.

$ ^{12} $Lewis, Miracles, p. 162.

$ ^{13} $ Mark Corner, Signs of God (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005), p. 14.

$ ^{14} $ Corner, Signs of God, p. 198.

$ ^{15} $ Corner, Signs of God, p. 15.

$ ^{16} $ Colin Brown, That You May Believe (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), p. 32.

B. The Historical Question: Did Jesus' Miracles Happen?

If it is conceded that miracles might indeed occur, this suggests the next question: Did Jesus' miracles, as recorded in the gospels, actually happen?

The gospels present Jesus as a person who was the subject of miraculous activity, particularly focused around his birth, baptism, transfiguration and resurrection. He is also depicted as someone who possessed supernatural knowledge and who performed miraculous deeds. Their number is a matter of debate. There are a number of criteria which can be used to assess historicity. These are:

1. The criterion of multiple attestation of sources and forms.

2. The criterion of discontinuity

3. The criterion of coherence.

4. The criterion of embarrassment.

With respect to the criterion of multiple attestation, the evidence for the historicity of Jesus as a miracle worker is very strong. The arrangement of miracle stories in Mark's Gospel suggests that the tradition of miracle stories existed in his sources. Mark includes blocks of miracle stories (Mark 1:21–

2:12; 4:35 to 5:43; 6:30 to 56; 7:24 to 8:10) as well as miracle stories interspersed with other material (Mark 3:1 to 6; 8:22 to 26; 9:14 to 29; 11:12 to 14). The stories vary in length and tone. A few provide the names of people and places. but most do not. Even though Mark does not have a great deal of discourse material, he does include a small amount of material that presents Jesus speaking about his miracles (Mark 8:17 to 21; 9:28 to 29).

While “Q” is generally regarded as being a source composed predominantly of Jesus' sayings, it would seem to include at least one miracle story, that of the healing of the centurion's servant. It also includes several sayings where Jesus' miracles are mentioned. There are a small number of miracle stories that are unique to Matthew,²³ with a larger number that are unique to Luke. This suggests that the sources that were unique to each gospel included miracle stories. John's Gospel appears to have been written independently of the Synoptic Gospels and provides a different theological perspective on miracles. While it does have miracle stories that are unique, possibly reflecting a separate tradition, it also includes miracle stories that have parallels in the Synoptics. This implies that the miracle stories in John are not the fabrication of the author but extend to earlier traditions.

There is also evidence from extra-biblical sources that point to Jesus as a miracle worker. In his Antiquities, Josephus refers to Jesus as a “doer of surprising deeds.” While some of the content of the section appears to have been edited by later Christian writers because it includes some statements that a devout Jew would be unlikely to confess about Jesus, it is likely that the reference to Jesus as a worker of miracles is authentic. The word translated “surprising” is used by Josephus elsewhere to mean “miraculous.” Additionally, the Babylonian Talmud refers to Jesus as one who “practiced sorcery,” most likely a reference to healing. Although these statements are quite general, they do provide evidence that Jesus was reputed to have performed miracles and that this knowledge was not limited to his followers.

It can be seen that there is significant attestation from multiple sources, both biblical and extra-biblical. The principle of multiple attestation, however, also requires the inclusion of a variety of forms. Accounts of healings, exorcisms and nature miracles are presented in narrative form. Sayings about miracles include general biographical statements about Jesus, rhetorical questions, declarative statements, miraculous knowledge, and the mandate for Jesus' disciples to heal and cast out demons. Not only is there support from multiple sources, but this support also comes in a variety of literary forms.

Additionally, the criterion of discontinuity provides support for the historicity of Jesus' miracles. There were stories about miracles in both Jewish and Greco-Roman literature, but there does not seem to have been any one person about whom there were so many stories.

A significant point of discontinuity between Greco-Roman literary sources and the N.T is the length of time between the purported events and the writing down of the accounts. While there are differences of opinion as to the dating of Mark's Gospel, most date it no later that about A.D 70, with some dating it possibly as early as the 50s. This means that Mark was written within a generation of the events it reports. This is to be contrasted with the reports of the first-century miracle worker, Apollonius of Tyana, about whom little is written until Philostratus produced a biography of him in the early third century. There are accounts of Jewish holy men from Galilee such as Honi the Circle-Drawer and Hanina ben-Dosa, which some commentators contend do provide a parallel with Jesus. However, such miracle workers only receive brief mention in the Mishnah, written approximately 200 years later. It is not until the fifth and sixth centuries that the traditions are more fully developed in the Talmuds.

There is discontinuity between the manner in which miracles, particularly healings, are carried out. When Jewish prophets or Jesus' disciples performed healings, it was “in the name of God” or, in the case of those who came after Jesus, “in the name of Jesus.” Other healers are reported using a range of incantations and talismans to effect healing. Jesus, however, performed healings in his own name. “I say to you...” is a common statement on Jesus' lips. Along with this is the emphasis on faith that is found in numerous gospel accounts of miracles but is largely absent from Greco-Roman or Jewish miracle stories.

However, it is in the overall picture rather than the details of the miracle stories that the greatest discontinuity is found. As Meier concludes:

The overall configuration, pattern or Gestalt of Jesus as a popular preacher and teller of parables, plus authoritative interpreter of the law and teacher of morality, plus proclaimer and realizer of the eschatological kingdom of God, plus miracle-worker actualizing his own proclamation has no adequate parallel in either the pagan or Jewish literature of the time.

Furthermore, the criterion of coherence provides support for the historicity of Jesus' miracles. This criterion holds that when, by using other criteria, it is established that both what is reported of Jesus' words and what is reported of his deeds have a good chance of being historical, then there should be coherence between the two. One example where this is quite clear is that Jesus' response to the accusations that he cast out demons by the power of Beelzebul is congruent with the accounts of his actions in casting out demons. Moreover, in his response to John the Baptist's query as to whether he was the one who was promised or whether another was coming, he pointed to his practical ministry, particularly the healings, but also to his proclamation of the kingdom of God. This coherence is particularly noticeable in Matthew where a section composed primarily of Jesus, teaching (Matthew 5 to 7) is immediately followed by a section that focuses predominantly on Jesus' miracles (Matthew 8 to 9).

With regard to the criterion of embarrassment there is less support here for Jesus' miracles than there is for some of Jesus' teaching. After all, who would be embarrassed about the positive effects of Jesus' healing ministry? But it does seem unlikely that the church would invent the charge that Jesus' exorcisms were the result of him being in league with Beelzebul. This, at least, could be seen as a source of embarrassment.

A general consensus has been reached that Jesus did extraordinary deeds which he and others considered to be miracles. Meier argues that the evidence, particularly that of multiple attestation and coherence, indicate that “total fabrication by the early church is, practically speaking, impossible.” He goes so far as to claim:

If the miracle tradition from Jesus' public ministry were to be rejected in toto as unhistorical, so should every other gospel tradition about him. For if the criteria of historicity do not work in the case of the miracle tradition, where multiple attestation is so massive and coherence so impressive, there is no reason to expect them to work elsewhere.

There is, however, less consensus among scholars when it comes to the historicity of any particular miracle story. For some this goes back to the philosophical question of whether some types of miracles can happen and the presupposition that they do not. For others it is simply a matter of the quantity of the data being insufficient to make a determination based on the criteria for historicity alone. Many of the miracle stories in the gospels are short and do not have significant corroborating data, therefore it is not possible to “prove” their historicity. The lack of corroborating evidence does not necessarily mean the account is unhistorical. In Blomberg's words, “Multiple attestation enhances the case but single attestation in and of itself does not detract.” Twelftree further points out that “we cannot move from 'unproven' to 'disproven.'” The overall evidence for Jesus as a miracle worker is sufficiently strong that, barring a preconception to the contrary, it becomes possible to at least consider the possibility that specific miracle stories go back to historical events.

$ ^{17} $ See the Appendix for a listing of Jesus' miraculous deeds and the biblical references for them.

$ ^{18} $ It is difficult to gain consensus on exactly how many are recorded in the gospels because there is disagreement on such issues as: (a) what constitutes a parallel (e.g., are the stories of healing two blind men in Matt. 9:27-31 and Matt. 18:35-43 two accounts of the same incident or two separate incidents?); (b) what constitutes a miraculous deed (e.g., is the story of the coin in the fish's mouth in Matt. 17:24-27 a miraculous deed or a case of supernatural knowledge?); and (c) where is the borderline between the description of a miraculous deed and a summary statement regarding Jesus' miraculous deeds (e.g., are the descriptions of Jesus healing many people with demons in Mark 1:32-34 and Matt. 8:16-17 describing miraculous deeds or do they constitute summary statements?).

$ ^{19} $ C. Blomberg, “Concluding Reflections,” in Gospel Perspectives (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986), pp. 445-51; René Latourelle, The Miracles of Jesus and the Theology of Miracles (New York: Paulist, 1988), pp. 53-69; J. P. Meier, A Marginal Jew vol. 1 (New York: Doubleday, 1994), pp. 619-31; and G. H. Twelftree, Jesus The Miracle Worker (Downers Grove: IVP, 1999), pp. 241-57 all include sections of significant length that apply the criteria for determining historicity for the overall evidence concerning Jesus as a miracle worker. Latourelle, Meier and Twelftree examine individual miracle stories in the light of these criteria.

$ ^{20} $ This is working from the assumption that Mark's Gospel was the first of the canonical gospels to be written, which is the consensus of the majority of scholars. Additionally, the traditional names for the gospels are being used without any presumption on the question of authorship.

$ ^{21} $ Matt. 8:5-13 || Luke 7:1-10. Some scholars view the healing of the mute demoniac (who is also blind in Matthew), Matt. 12:22-23 || Luke 11:14, as a second example.

$ ^{22} $ Statements regarding exorcism in the Beelzebul controversy, Matt. 12:22-32 || Luke 11:14-23; Jesus' reply to John the Baptist, Matt. 11:5-6 || Luke 11:22-23; woes against cities who did not believe Jesus in spite of miracles, Matt. 11:20-24 || Luke 10:12-15; Jesus' commissioning the disciples to perform miracles, Matt. 10:8 || Luke 10:9.

$ ^{23} $ See Appendix for references.

$ ^{24} $ See Appendix for references.

$ ^{25} $ See Appendix for references.

$ ^{26} $ Josephus, Ant. 18.63-64.

$ ^{27} $ Josephus uses the same word to refer to miracles performed by Elisha (Ant. 9.182).

$ ^{28} $b. Sanh. 43a

$ ^{29} $Luke 13:32; Matt. 11:5-6 || Luke 11:22-23.

$ ^{30} $ Matt. 12:27 || Luke 11:19.

$ ^{31} $ Matt. 12:28 | Luke 11:20.

$ ^{32} $ John 4:17-18, 21; 2:23-25.

$ ^{33} $ Mark 6:7, 13; Luke 10:8-9.

$ ^{34} $Meier, A Marginal Jew, vol. 2, p. 624.

$ ^{35} $ Latourelle, The Miracles of Jesus, p. 59.

$ ^{36} $ Norman Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (New York: Harper and Row, 1967), pp. 130-42.

$ ^{37} $Meier, A Marginal Jew, vol. 2, p. 624.

$ ^{38} $Meier, A Marginal Jew, p. 1.176.

$ ^{39} $ Matt. 11:2-6 | Luke 7:18-23.

$ ^{40} $Meier, A Marginal Jew, vol. 2, p. 630.

$ ^{41} $Meier, A Marginal Jew, vol. 2, p. 630.

$ ^{42} $ Blomberg, “Concluding Reflections,” p. 446.

$ ^{43} $ Twelftree, Jesus The Miracle Worker, p. 250.

C. The Literary Question: What Did the Evangelists Intend When They Included the Miracle Stories in the Gospels?

In the study of the gospels, there has been increasing interest in the particular theological perspectives of each of the evangelists, and this has flowed over into examination of their individual interests in and use of the miracle stories.

One way of understanding the evangelists' intent when they included the miracle stories is to examine the words they use to describe miracles. The most common word used of miracles in the Synoptic Gospels is Greek text (dynamis). While its basic meaning is power, strength, or might, it can also be used, in the plural, with the meaning of mighty or powerful deeds, in other words, miracles. It is related to the verb Greek text (dynamai) meaning "to be able," "to be capable," suggesting that these powerful deeds are the work of God who is "capable," "powerful." With the use of this word, the focus is on the event as an expression of God's power rather than the event for its own sake.

A word frequently used in the N.T is sigma (omega) (sözö) meaning “to save.” It is used in all four gospels of eschatological salvation, but in Luke and Mark, and to a lesser extent Matthew, it is also used of healing. In each case it is the healing of the whole person that is brought about in response to faith. In the gospels physical healing is an expression of eschatological salvation.

The most common word for miracle in John's Gospel is Greek text (semeion), a sign or a corroborating or authenticating mark. For John, Jesus' miracles testify to Jesus' identity. The appropriate response to “signs” is belief (John 2:11, 23; 4:53; 9:38). The word also appears in the Synoptics, but typically in condemnation of those who seek such “signs” as proof.

Another commonly used word is epsilon rho gamma omega (ergon). "work." While it is used in a general sense of Jesus' ministry in the Synoptics, it is linked more specifically with Jesus' miracles in John. Like "signs." Jesus' "works" bear witness to the fact that he has come from the Father.

There are several other words that are used occasionally including Greek text (thaumasia), “amazing things” (Matt. 21:15), Greek text (paradoxa), strange or remarkable things (Luke 5:26), and Greek text (teras), a wonder or marvel. This last word is used only in the plural combined with Greek text, and always negatively, either in the sense of wonders produced by false messiahs or in the sense that the Synoptics use Greek text of the signs that people seek yet refuse to believe.

From this it can be seen that the more sensational words, such as Greek text or Greek text, are only used rarely or in a negative sense. The words that dominate are “mighty deeds,” “signs,” “works” and cognates of the verb “save.” The picture that these words build up is that Jesus' miracles are done in the power of God, in the service of God, as pointers towards God, and as expressions of God's salvation, not simply to produce spectacular events.

Another way of coming to an understanding of the gospel writers' intentions regarding the inclusion of miracle stories is to examine how each writer structures their gospel and how the miracle stories fit within that structure.

$ ^{44} $ O. Betz, “Might: δύναμος,” in C. Brown, ed., New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, volume 2 (Exeter: Paternoster, 1976), pp. 601-06.

45 J. Schneider and C. Brown, “Redemption: σωζω,” in NIDNTT, vol. 3 (1978), pp. 205-16.

O. Hofius and C. Brown, “Miracle, Wonder, Sign: σημείον,” NIDNTT, vol. 2, pp. 626-3.

$ ^{47} $ Matt. 12:38-39; 16:1-4; Mark 8:11-12; Luke 11:16, 29-30; 23:8-9.

$ ^{48} $ John 5:19-24, 36-37; 10:25, 32, 37-39; 14:10-11.

1. Mark

Mark's Gospel can be divided into two parts. The majority of the miracle stories are included in the first half (Mark 1:1 8:26) and only three are narrated in the second half (Mark 8:27 to 16:8). This reflects the interplay of key themes in Mark: power and authority in stark contrast to suffering and death. Jesus is presented as a powerful miracle worker and authoritative teacher as well as the suffering Messiah who gives his life for many. Jesus' power and authority are dominant in the first half, while his suffering and death are dominant in the second half.

The first group of miracles focuses on Jesus' ministry in Capernaum. They follow shortly after the accounts of Jesus' baptism, empowering with the Spirit, temptation by Satan (Mark 1:9 to 13), and Mark's general summary statement of Jesus' ministry (Mark 1:14 to 15), and are introduced with an additional summary statement highlighting Jesus' authoritative teaching (Mark 1:22). The miracle stories themselves highlight Jesus' authority over demons and illness. Also introduced in this section is the theme of the "Messianic Secret" which draws attention to the fact that a view of Jesus as a powerful Messiah is incomplete without a view of him as the suffering Messiah.

The narrative then moves into a section which includes a series of healing miracles that draw attention to Jesus' interaction with his critics, in particular, the Jewish leadership. Jesus' claim to have authority to forgive sins (Mark 2:10) and his claim to have authority over the Sabbath (Mark 2:28; 3:4), both linked with healing miracles, anger the Jewish leadership which conspires to destroy him (Mark 3:6). This section culminates with the charge that he casts out demons by the power of Beelzebul (Mark 3:22). While these stories expand the focus of Jesus' authority and power, they also hint at the final culmination of Jesus' ministry in suffering and death which results in salvation for people and victory over the powers of evil (Mark 3:4, 6, 23 to 26).

Following a section of teaching in parables, Mark recounts four astounding miracles: calming the storm (Mark 4:37 to 41), healing the Gerasene demoniac (Mark 5:1 to 5), healing the hemorrhaging woman (Mark 5:48 to 51), and raising Jairus's daughter (Mark 5:22 to 24, 38 to 42). In the preceding discussion of the significance of parables Mark noted the privileged position of the disciples. The miracle stories that follow feature the presence of the disciples; in fact for two of them only disciples are present. The section concludes with the disciples being sent out to do what Jesus had been doing, namely, proclaiming that all should repent, and casting out demons and healing people (Mark 6:6b-13). Jesus' power and authority is extended to his disciples. But also included in this section is a reminder of the other side of the contrast: in his hometown of Nazareth, Jesus is rejected and ministry is limited by unbelief (Mark 6:1-6a).

The martyrdom of John the Baptist (Mark 6:29), another reminder of suffering and death, introduces a series of miracle stories dominated by two accounts of feeding large numbers of people (Mark 6:30 to 44: 8:1 to 10). The theme of bread, symbolic of messianic blessings and the eschatological banquet, runs right through this section, as does the theme of the disciples' failure to understand. Mark's commentary on the disciples' reaction to the miracles emphasizes their astonishment, lack of understanding and hardness of heart, and is pointedly contrasted with the Syro-Phoenician woman's faith. This section ends with the account of the blind man whose sight is restored in two stages (Mark 8:22 to 26). By placing this story at the central point of the Gospel, Mark makes it symbolic of the disciples' process towards understanding. So far the disciples have been able to come to terms, at least to some degree, with the concept of Jesus as the powerful Messiah, but as the account of Peter's confession and his reaction to Jesus' prediction of suffering and death show, they have not yet been able to grasp the concept of Jesus as a suffering Messiah (Mark 8:27 to 33).

This marks a turning point in Mark's Gospel. From here the prediction of Jesus' suffering and death becomes increasingly more explicit. Between here and Jesus' final approach to Jerusalem, only one miracle story is narrated, that of the healing of the epileptic boy (Mark 9:14 to 29), which again emphasizes the ineffectiveness and lack of understanding on the part of the disciples.

There are only two more miracle stories in Mark's Gospel. Their positioning gives them a symbolic meaning in addition to the significance of the stories in their own right. The restoring of sight to Bartimaeus who then follows Jesus "on the way" (Mark 10:46 to 52) functions prophetically. Eventually the disciples will "see."

They will understand that Jesus is both the powerful Messiah and the suffering Messiah, and they will follow him. This is in contrast to the final miracle story, the cursing of the fig tree (Mark 11:12 to 14), which is the only miracle story with a negative outcome. Because it is interwoven with the account of Jesus cleansing the temple, it functions as a prophetic commentary on those who have rejected Jesus, particularly the Jewish leadership.

Mark's use of the miracle stories reinforces his presentation of the two aspects of Jesus as Messiah: his power and his weakness. The Christ of powerful deeds humbles and empties himself.

$ ^{49} $ John 4:48, cf. Matt. 12:38-39; 16:1-4; Mark 8:11-12; Luke 11:16, 29-30; 23:8-9.

$ ^{50} $ The label “Messianic Secret” has been given to a theme that is particularly dominant in Mark’s Gospel. Jesus instructs his disciples and evil spirits not to divulge his identity and tells people who have been healed not to tell others.

2. Matthew

Matthew uses many of the same stories as Mark, but the way he structures his Gospel gives them a different emphasis. In chapters 8 to 9, he narrates a series of miracle stories, including a number from the first half of Mark, though in a different order, as well as several that are not in Mark. This follows the discourse section (Matthew 5 to 7) commonly known as the “Sermon on the Mount.” Almost identical summary statements occur prior to the Sermon and following the collection of miracle stories (Matt. 4:23; 9:35). Just as the Sermon concludes with a statement that the people were amazed at Jesus' teaching so too the series of miracle stories concludes with a statement that the people were amazed (Matt. 7:28 to 29; 9:33). These two sections are tied together in such a way that Jesus' teaching and deeds cannot be separated. The miracle stories function as support for Jesus' teaching.

In the teaching there is an emphasis on Jesus being the fulfillment of the law and being able to interpret that law authoritatively. This theme is continued in the series of miracle stories. In the first story the man cured of leprosy is told to go and show himself to the priest as Moses commanded (Matt. 7:4). Part way through the series is an explicit statement regarding the fulfillment of prophecy in which Isa. 53:4, part of a “Servant Song,” is quoted (Matt. 8:17). The section concludes with reference to Jesus' compassion on the people because they were like “sheep without a shepherd” (Matt. 9:36). “Shepherd” is a common word in the O.T and is used in a number of places, especially Ezekiel 34, as a metaphor for rulers and leaders.

Two more miracle stories are included in Matthew 12, again linked to the fulfillment of prophecy and the amazement of the crowds. Although it was present in the previous sequence, the rejection by the Jewish leadership and the accusation that it is by the power of Beelzebul that Jesus is able to perform such miracles, is presented more strongly in this section.

Following another discourse section, Matthew includes a series of miracles that Mark used to focus on the disciples (Matthew 14 to 15). Matthew uses these miracles to focus on discipleship, but, unlike Mark, does not emphasize the failure of the disciples to understand. Instead the role of the disciples is given a higher profile and their responses to the miracles are depicted more positively. Yet even here there is mention of their lack of faith, and in other sections there are additional references to their failings with respect to miracles.

A key element in Matthew's use of the miracle stories is the focus on faith. Statements such as"let it be done for you according to your faith" and"your faith has made you well" are common. Twice non-Jews are particularly commended for their faith. While Matthew's descriptions of the miracles tend to be briefer than Mark's, the dialogues between Jesus and those who are the beneficiaries of the miracles tend to be longer, especially when they involve the issue of faith. Matthew uses the miracle stories to encourage the on-going faith of his readers.

$ ^{51} $ Matt. 12:18-21, cf. Isa. 42:1-4; Matt. 12:23.

$ ^{52} $ Matt. 14:31; cf. 8:26; 16:8; 17:20.

3. Luke

Luke follows the same basic outline as Mark and Matthew, but has his own emphases. In the sequel to his Gospel, Luke describes his first book as being about “all that Jesus did and taught” (Acts 1:1; compare Luke 24:19). The sequence of verbs is significant. While Matthew gave priority to Jesus' teaching, Luke brings Jesus' deeds to the fore.

Luke includes many of the miracle stories from Mark, though notably does not include any material from Mark 6:45 to 8:27. Luke shares one miracle story with Matthew, possibly emanating from the “Q” source. Luke contains a number of miracle stories not found in any other gospel. His account of Jesus' ministry can be divided into three sections: ministry in Galilee (Luke 4:14 to 9:50), the journey to Jerusalem (Luke 9:51 to 19:44), and the final week including the passion (Luke 19:45 to 24:53). The majority of the miracle stories occur in the first part, and while there are fewer miracle stories in the second part, they are still prominent. There is only one miracle story in the final part, namely, the healing the high priest's servant's ear (Luke 22:50 to 51).

Luke introduces Jesus' ministry with the incident in Nazareth where Jesus reads from Isaiah:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor (Luke 4:18 to 19; compare Isa. 61:1 to 2).

Jesus' comment, "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing," along with the Luke's placing of this incident at the beginning of his account of Jesus' ministry, indicates that Luke intends his readers to interpret that ministry in the light of this prophecy regarding his empowerment by the Spirit. The miracles are to be seen therefore as the result of the work of the Spirit. But miracles are also an expression of "good news to the poor," or good news that consists of release, healing, and freedom. When John the Baptist's disciples bring John's query as to whether Jesus is the one who was promised, Jesus replies in similar terms: "Go and tell John what you have seen." and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have good news brought to them" (Luke 7:22). And as Luke continues his account in Acts, this same understanding is expressed when Jesus' ministry is summarized as: “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power; he went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him” (Acts 10:38).

Thus the miracles are presented as integral to salvation history. While Mark makes a clear distinction between healings and exorcisms, Luke frequently merges the two. Healing is often expressed as deliverance. The miracles are evidence of the fall of the kingdom of Satan, but, more importantly, they are evidence that “the kingdom of God has come to you” (Luke 11:20). When the disciples return from their mission and are amazed that even the demons submit, Jesus says to them, “Do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven” (Luke 10:20). The focus is primarily on the positive outcome of salvation history.

While the miracles are, in a sense, “proofs,” they are not universally accepted. This is unambiguously expressed in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus where Jesus comments: “If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead” (Luke 16:31).

Similarly there was initial amazement in Nazareth (4:22), but this sentiment quickly turned to anger. However, this rejection meant that the prophecy that Jesus would bring good news to the “poor” becomes more explicitly fulfilled as Jesus turns to those who are outcast: the sick, lepers, tax collectors, women, sinners, and non-Jews. It is these people who respond positively.

Like Mark and Matthew, Luke highlights the place of faith on the part of those who are healed, but he also depicts faith as the means by which the significance of the miracles is appropriated. For example, it is the one leper out of the ten who returns to give thanks who is commended for his faith. The proper response, as this man demonstrates, is to praise God (Luke 17:11 to 19).

Luke focuses on Jesus' miraculous deeds, but not for the sake of the deeds themselves. They are subsidiary to salvation. In the words of R. H. Fuller:"The healings, exorcisms and raising from the dead are all signs that Jesus is the prophet-Messiah sent from God: in him the salvation of God is present in history."

$ ^{53} $ Matt. 9:29; 8:13; cf. 9:22; 15:28.

$ ^{54} $ See R. H. Fuller, Interpreting the Miracles (London: SCM Press, 1963), p. 82.

4. John

Just as John's Gospel as a whole is quite different from the Synoptic Gospels, so too is his approach to the miracle stories. The Gospel can be divided into two parts: the “Book of Signs” and the “Book of Passion” or the “Book of Glory. John has fewer miracle stories than the Synoptics, only seven in the first part. They tend to stress the desperate situations in which Jesus chooses to act, as well as the power of Jesus' word in overcoming overwhelming obstacles and producing astonishing results.

John describes the miracles as “signs” and “works.” Thus they both point to Jesus' relationship to the Father and the power and glory of Jesus himself. Each miracle story is associated with a discussion that uncovers it meaning. Rather than focusing on the kingdom of God, as the Synoptics do, these discussions focus on eternal life, Jesus' relationship with his Father, and Jesus' glory. This different focus is perhaps why there are no accounts of exorcisms in John. Such an omission would seem to be deliberate, as it is unlikely that the writer would have been unaware of exorcism stories.

The first “sign” that John presents is the turning of water into wine at the wedding in Cana (John 2:1 to 11). The placement here serves a similar function as the Nazareth narrative does in Luke: it is a summary of Jesus' ministry. He turns the water set aside for Jewish purification rites into wine for celebration, symbolic of the messianic banquet and the presence of the Messiah who fulfils the law (Isa. 25:6). The statement, “You have kept the good wine until now,” is not simply part of the narrative of the event, but functions as a theological statement to the effect that in Jesus the “good wine” has now come. This understanding is reinforced by the following pericope where Jesus cleanses the temple and by implication challenges the way in which the conventional religious order functions. The miracle at Cana reveals Jesus' “glory,” yet Jesus' “hour” has not yet come. “Glory” and “hour” are both words that John frequently associates with Jesus' death. The story as a whole, then, functions symbolically. Jesus is the Messiah who fulfils the law of Moses and brings salvation through his death.

John continues the series of “signs” with healing the official's son at Capernaum, healing the man at the pool of Bethsaida, feeding the five thousand, walking on water, healing the man born blind, and concludes the sequence with raising Lazarus. Each “sign” to some degree presents Jesus as giver of “life.” This theme is brought to a climax with the raising of Lazarus. Apart from the passion narrative, this is the longest narrative in the Gospel, and unlike the previous “signs,” which are frequently followed by an explanatory narrative, this one has an explanation intertwined with it. This miracle also forms a bridge to the “Book of Passion.” John presents this event as the direct trigger for the Jewish leadership's final decision to get rid of Jesus (John 11:45 to 53). Thus it points forward to Jesus' death and resurrection.

Response to Jesus' “signs” is mixed. Some people respond with faith. Others react with unbelief, which often results in a plot to get rid of Jesus. Still others see the signs simply as wonderful events. Belief based on signs is encouraged: “Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; but if you do not, then believe me because of the works themselves”. However, this faith based on miracles is only a starting point. It is a faith that goes beyond the signs that John wants to encourage: “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed”. Engendering such belief is, in fact, the author's purpose in writing:

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.

It can be seen that each of the gospel writers uses the miracle stories in different, though not mutually exclusive, ways. Mark presents Jesus as both powerful Messiah and suffering Messiah. Jesus' miracles cannot be taken in isolation from his death. Matthew uses the miracle stories as support for Jesus' teaching and as evidence that he fulfils prophecy.

Jesus' teaching and his deeds go together. Luke sums up Jesus' ministry as "good news for the poor" and uses the miracle stories as demonstrations of the healing, release and freedom that is inherent in this "good news." Jesus' miracles are integral to salvation history. John presents the miracle stories as "signs" that point to Jesus, his relationship with the Father, and the eternal life that is available through Jesus. While they have different emphases, each evangelist has the same basic purpose: to present Jesus in such a way as to cause people to respond in faith. The miracle stories are part of the way in which they do this.

$ ^{55} $ Fuller, Interpreting the Miracles, pp. 85-86.

$ ^{56} $ John 1:19–12:50. The label “Book of Signs” is also sometimes used to denote a possible

source the writer of John's Gospel may have used. It is argued that this source contained a collection of accounts of Jesus' miraculous deeds, and is the source of the miracle stories unique to John.

$ ^{57} $ John 13:1–20:31. This section focuses on the last week, the passion and the resurrection narratives, hence the label “Book of Passion.” But John frequently refers to Jesus’ death as him being “lifted up” or “glorified,” hence the title “Book of Glory.”

$ ^{58} $ There is also one miracle story in the second part. It occurs in chapter 21, which is likely to be a postscript added at a later stage in the composition history of the Gospel, and so functions differently from those miracles recounted in the first part.

$ ^{59} $ John 4:46-54; 5:1-9; 6:5-13; 6:9-21; 9:1-41; 11:1-44.

$ ^{60} $Meier, A Marginal Jew, vol. 2, p. 798.

$ ^{61} $ Twelftree, Jesus The Miracle Worker, p. 214.

D. The Theological Question: What is the Significance of Jesus' Miracles?

To the extent that the gospels reflect Jesus' life, his actions and his words, they are a window to Jesus' own understanding of the miraculous deeds he performed. Thus it is to the evangelists that we must turn for guidance in coming to an understanding of the significance of Jesus' miracles for us today.

The miracle stories are interwoven throughout each gospel account of Jesus' life and ministry, though to a lesser extent in the final days before his death. In their accounts of his death, the miracles Jesus performed during his life are overshadowed by the miracle of which Jesus was the subject, that is, the resurrection. Therefore if we are to come to an understanding of who Jesus was and the significance of his life, we must come to an understanding of the miracles in the light of the resurrection. It is in the light of reflection on the resurrection that the evangelists present their accounts of Jesus' life, including his miraculous deeds.

There is a general consensus among scholars that Jesus' miracles are presented as indicators of the presence of the kingdom of God. The exorcisms and the defeat of Satan that they implied (particularly the implication that Jesus is the “stronger man” who has defeated the “strong man,” Satan; Matt. 12:22 to 29; Mark 3:22 to 27; Luke 11:15 to 22), together with the healings and the fulfillment of prophecy they implied, seem to indicate that, in some sense, Jesus understood the kingdom to be already present (Matt. 11:4 to 5; 12:28). However, many of the references to the kingdom suggest that it has only “come near” (Mark 1:15). The kingdom in its fullness is still to come. Nevertheless, the miracles are meant to lead people into the kingdom. The miracles present Jesus as the embodiment of its power and grace.

The miracles also point to Jesus' identity as the eschatological Messiah who brings salvation. The miracles are a concrete, visible sign of holistic salvation. Physical, emotional, social and spiritual restoration and freedom were prophesied as being part of the age to come. In the miracles, Jesus is presented as the bringer of that salvation.

The power through which Jesus performs miraculous deeds is depicted as being the power of God. His relationship with God is portrayed as unique, expressed both in his use of the word Abba (Father) to refer to God (Mark 14:36), and in his repeated insistence that his works are the works of his Father (John 5:36; 10:25, 32, 37). In the miracles God's power is at work.

In each of the gospels this presentation of Jesus is implicit both through Jesus' teaching and his miraculous deeds. However, it is only through the passion and resurrection narratives that this becomes explicit. Jesus' followers, especially in Mark, are characterized as having a partial appreciation of his identity and the significance of his deeds during his life. However, it is only with the resurrection, and the theological reflection triggered by it, that Jesus is fully revealed as the inaugurator of the kingdom of God, the divinely appointed bringer of eschatological salvation and the agent of God's power.

Such a presentation requires a response. The response in Jesus' own time was mixed. Some responded with unbelief and hostility, others with faith and acceptance. Those who responded to an encounter with Jesus with faith were able to enter into a transforming relationship with him. It is this sort of faith response that the writers of the gospels want to elicit from their readers.

$ ^{62} $ John 2:11, 23; 4:50, 53; 6:14; 9:38; 11:25-27, 40, 45.

$ ^{63} $ John 5:18; 6:66; 9:24; 11:46-53; 12:37.

$ ^{64} $ There is a textual variant associated with the verb “believe.” Some manuscripts, which the NRSV follows here, have an aorist subjunctive which may put the emphasis on initial “coming to believe.” Other manuscripts have a present subjunctive, which carries the nuance of ongoing belief. The overall context of John does not make a sharp distinction between the two. The context here, whether the original is understood to be an aorist or a present tense, suggests that the phrase “that you may believe” is not exclusively initial belief or ongoing belief, but is inclusive of both.

E. Conclusion

We return to the questions that were posed at the outset. To the philosophical question “Can and do miracles occur?” the answer (whether positive or negative) cannot be proven, at least not in the usual sense of a “proof.” Yet if one remains at least open to the possibility, and does not automatically on the basis of preconceived ideas reject the concept of miracles out of hand, then it is possible to have an openness regarding the answers to the questions below.

The evidence regarding the historical question “Did Jesus' miracles occur?” is strong. While there is insufficient evidence to “prove” that any specific miracle occurred exactly as it is reported in the gospels, the overall evidence that Jesus did perform miraculous deeds, especially healings and exorcisms, is weighty indeed. If the overall evidence for Jesus as a miracle worker is accepted, then it becomes possible to consider that individual miracle stories may go back to real events.

Examination of the gospels themselves provides answers to the literary question, “What did the gospel writers intend when they used the miracle stories?” The evidence strongly suggests they intended the miracle stories, along with Jesus' teaching, to be indicators of the inauguration of the kingdom of God, evidence of Jesus' relationship with his Father, and testimony to a decisive juncture in salvation history. Ultimately they called their readers to respond to Jesus in faith.

The final question, a theological one, “What was/is the significance of Jesus' miracles?” is one which continues to be open to interpretation. If the first two questions are answered in the negative, then it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to consider the evangelists' interpretation of the significance of Jesus' miracles as legitimate. Some other explanation must be found. If, however, the first two questions are answered in the affirmative, or if Jesus' miracles are at least regarded as possible, then it also becomes possible to consider that the evangelists' interpretation of those miracles is reasonable. Today's readers of the gospels generally, and the miracle stories in particular, are faced with the same choice that the original readers, and in fact the original witnesses to Jesus' ministry, were faced with. They may choose to respond with scepticism and unbelief, or they may choose to respond with faith and acceptance, both of Jesus' deeds and words, and of Jesus himself.

Appendix: Miracles of Jesus Recorded in the Gospels

The layout of the following table begins with the miracle stories in Mark, along with parallels in the other gospels. This is based on the view of the majority of scholars that Mark's Gospel was the first of the canonical gospels to be written. The table then lists those stories that are common to Matthew and Luke, that is, those likely to have come from "Q," and finally lists those stories that are unique to Matthew, Luke, and John respectively.

Betz, Otto. "Greek text." In New International Dictionary of New Testament Theologv, volume two, edited by C. Brown, pp. 601 to 06. Exeter: Paternoster, 1976.

Blackburn, Barry L. "Miracles and Miracle Stories" In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, edited by Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshall, pp. 549 to 60. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992.

Blackburn, Barry L. "The Miracles of Jesus." In Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research in Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans, eds., pp. 353-94. New York/Leiden: Brill, 1994.

Brown, Colin. That You May Believe: Miracles and Faith Then and Now. Grand Rapids/Exeter: Eerdmans/Paternoster, 1985.

Collins, C. John. The God of Miracles: An Exegetical Examination of God's Action in the World. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2000.

Corner, Mark. Signs of God: Miracles and their Interpretation. Burlington/Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005.

Geisler, Norman L. Miracles and the Modern Mind. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992.

Geivett, R. Douglas, and Gary R. Habermas, eds. In Defence of Miracles: A Comprehensive Case for God's Action in History. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997.

Hacking, Keith J. Signs and Wonders Then and Now: Miracle-working, Commissioning and Discipleship. Nottingham: Apollos, 2006.

Hofius, Otfried, and Colin Brown. “ὐημεῖον.” In New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, volume two, edited by C. Brown, pp. 626-33. Exeter: Paternoster, 1976.

Hume. David. Enquiries Concerning the Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals. Reprinted from the Posthumous Edition of 1777 and edited with Introduction, Comparative Table of Contents, and Analytical Index by L. A. Selby-Ridge. London: Clarendon Press, 1975.

Kistemaker, Simon J. The Miracles: Exploring the Mystery of Jesus's Divine Works. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006.

Latourelle, René. The Miracles of Jesus and the Theology of Miracles. New York: Paulist Press, 1998.

Lewis, C. S. Miracles: A Preliminary Study. New York: Macmillan, 1947.

Schneider, J., and Colin Brown. “$\sigma_{\psi}\zeta_{\omega}$.” In New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, volume three, edited by C. Brown, pp. 205-16. Exeter: Paternoster, 1978.

Stanton, Graham. "Message and Miracles." In The Cambridge Companion to Jesus, edited by Markus Bockmuehl, pp. 56-71. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University, 2001.

Swinburne, Richard, ed. Miracles. New York/London: Macmillan/Collier Macmillan, 1989.

Twelftree, Graham H. Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1993.

Twelftree. Graham H. Jesus the Miracle Worker. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999.

Twelftree, Graham H. "The History of Miracles in the History of Jesus." In The Face of New Testament Studies: A Survey of Recent Research, edited by Scot McKnight and Grant R. Osborne, pp. 191-208. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004.

Wenham, David W., and Craig L. Blomberg, eds. The Miracles of Jesus. Gospel Perspectives, volume 6. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986.