Differences in Bible Miracles and Modern Miracles
by Hiram Hutto
While Jesus was on earth he made some very
startling claims. He claimed to be divine, and the Jews so understood him
(Jn. 5:18; 10:33). He claimed to be the Son of God (Jn. 10:35-37).
He claimed to be the Messiah (Jn. 4:25-26) and the Savior of the
world (Jn. 14:6). But anyone could make these claims. We were on a
call-in radio program where a man would occasionally call denying that Jesus
was the Messiah, and claiming instead that he was the Messiah. However,
Jesus did more than simply claim to be the things noted, he proved that
claim by the miracles he performed. Let's consider these.
1. Power over nature. He stilled a storm
(Matt. 8:26-27).
2. Power over material things. He fed 5,000
men with a few loaves and fishes (Luke 9:10-17).
3. Power over all manner of diseases
(Matt. 8:16).
4. Power over the spirit
world (Matt. 8:16).
5. Power over life and death (Jn.
11:14-44).
These are not merely powers, but ones
performed in a confirmation of his claims (Jn. 20:30-31).
The apostles, too, were able to perform
miracles, not to prove that they were divine, etc. - for they never claimed
such but, in fact, they denied it (Acts 14:11-15). Their
miracle-working power was given to them to confirm the word which they were
preaching. "How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation; which
having at the first been spoken through the Lord, was confirmed unto us by
them that heard; God also bearing witness with them, both by signs and
wonders, and by manifold powers, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit, according
to his own will" (Heb. 2:34). The Bible shows that after the apostles
received the commission to "go into all the world and preach the gospel to
every creature" (Mk. 16:15), they went forth, and preached
everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs
following" (Mk. 16:20).
From these facts and many more, it may be
safely concluded that there is no need for miracles today. The Bible has
sufficient proof in writing that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God"
(Jn. 20:30-31), and the word of God having been adequately confirmed is
sufficient. Anything we need to know about life and godliness is furnished
completely when we take all the Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:3).
Although this is true, it does not keep many people from claiming to perform
miracles today. But there is a vast difference between what is done in our
day and the miracles performed by Jesus and the apostles. Let us consider
some of these differences.
1.
The miracles of the New Testament were not limited to healing. As
already noted, there was power to still the tempest. Yet in 1950 a storm
blew Oral Roberts' tent down injuring 50 people, most of whom were treated
at local hospitals, not by Roberts. Where have you heard reliable evidence
of turning water into wine? Not even A. A. Allen, noted healer, could have
done this, though he died of acute alcoholism. Who today is feeding 5,000
men with a few loaves and fishes? For the most part, today's "miracles," in
sharp contrast to these, are limited to "healings" and these are not of any
organic illness. We are told by those who are supposed to know that most of
these illnesses are in the mind, so when Roberts or others convince those
who think they are ill that they are not sick, they are "healed" but not
miraculously.
2.
The apostles were not "selective" in their miracles or in their healings.
An advertisement for an Oral Roberts campaign states "Prayer Cards Given Out
at Afternoon Service ONLY" (emphasis his, HH). Anyone who has attended such
services should know why this is done - to screen out the undesirables.
Whoever read where those who were healed by the apostles needed a prayer
card?
3.
Miracles in the New Testament were not conditioned on the faith of those
being healed. How much faith did dead Dorcas have (Acts
9:36-40)? The lame man who was healed by Peter in Acts 3 was not
even expecting to be healed, much less believing that he would be. Yet
today, those who are not healed are told that they do not have enough faith.
What a compound tragedy this is! The sick are not only left with their
sickness, but are made to feel guilty because they are the ones to blame for
lacking in faith!
4.
As in Acts 3:7 the lame man was healed "immediately." If you have
attended many "healing" campaigns, no doubt you have witnessed people, being
"worked into a lather" with much emotion, exertion, and sweating over the
ones to be healed. Not so in that done by the apostles.
5.
The miracles of the New Testament were so powerful that even the enemies of
the apostles admitted "that indeed a notable miracle hath been done by them
is manifest unto all that dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it" (Acts
4:16). In our day, numerous ones could deny the "miracles" that
were supposed to have been wrought, and they have denied them and that
publicly. From the Alabama Baptist (9/12/74), there is this headline: "Noted
Surgeon Follows Up Reports on Faith Healings, Says He Found None." The
article tells how Dr. William A. Nolen of Litchfield, Minn., noted surgeon
and author of the book, Healing: A Doctor In Search of a Miracle, wrote,
"After following up on the cases of 26 patients who thought they had been
'healed' at a famous faith healers religious service here, says he couldn't
find a single cured patient in the group." The book is even more extensive
than that with the same results. At various times some of our brethren have
offered high financial rewards for proof of any genuine healing of organic
illnesses. To my knowledge, they have never had to pay off.
6.
After the apostles were baptized in the Holy Spirit, there were no failures.
Acts 5:16 is typical, "they were healed every one."
Instances could be multiplied where Oral Roberts and others failed
frequently, some even dying after they had been pronounced "healed." Jack
Coe had an ingenuous reply to this. He claimed that he had healed many
people who did not know they had been healed for they still had the same
symptoms!
7.
No collections. One of the most obvious differences between
today's "healing campaign" and those in the Bible has to do with money. One
does not read in the New Testament where the apostles or others took up a
collection as a part of their "healing campaign." (In fact, one does not
read in the New Testament of "healing campaigns" with all the self produced
publicity and high pressure propaganda that is so characteristic of today's
"miracle worker"). If memory serves me correctly, several years ago I
attended one of these and, before the meeting was over, collections were
taken-up 9 times! On the other hand, the Bible tells us that Peter said,
"Silver and gold have I none" (Acts 3:6), but he did not follow it up
with a collection. Quite a contrast.
8.
In the New Testament the apostles performed miracles which confirmed that
their teaching was God's revelation. I have never heard a modern
miracle worker claim that his teaching is a new revelation that is to be
considered as a part of the word of God. But if they are doing what the
apostles were doing or if they believe that they are doing what the apostles
were doing, their teaching should be considered as much a part of the Bible
as that which John or Paul wrote. In this case we would need a "loose-leaf
Bible" to which we would continue to add their revelation. After all, Paul
is emphatic when he says, "the things that I write unto you are the
commandments of the Lord" (1 Cor. 14:37).
From these considerations and many more, it
can be readily seen that when today's miracles are compared with what we
read in the Bible, there is no comparison!
Other Articles
A Bit of Methodist History on Instrumental Music
If We Believed What They Believed
Going
Home