Christians Have Good Reason To Reject Modern Spectacular Miracles

Hear Me Out!

I teased you via notes about a post on *xp*ct*d V*lu*, but I don’t find adding more at this time will progress the conversation. What I want to talk about is the other discourse that has enflamed substack that I have otherwise been silent on: Miracles!

I’m not going to approach it in the same ways other writers have, by examining evidence, evaluating claims, comparing probabilities, and all that other stuff. No, that’s boring.

Instead, I want to incorporate my signature Constructive Skepticism (TM) with my less-well-known intellectual side hustle: Biblical Studies.

My assertion here is that contemporary spectacular miracles (which I will define), don’t appear to be demonstrations of power, don’t communicate novel theological ideas, and contradict the purpose of divine hiddenness. They seem to be out of continuity with biblical and Christian accounts of miracles, Christian conceptions of God, and so they should be discarded.

Miracles As Demonstrations Of Power

Miracles in the Bible have specific purposes. Namely, they primarily function as demonstrations of power, as expected by ancient peoples.

Ancient peoples believed that Gods and otherwise spiritual entities were everywhere. YHWH (or God) was not the only one who could perform miracle. But the best way to demonstrate the superiority of any God was to have contesting miracles and have one “win.”

A good example of this is in the Exodus story, and you’ve probably heard of it. When visiting Pharaoh to set the Israelites free¹, God turned Moses’s staff into a snake. Unphased, Pharaoh’s priests/magicians in turn performed the same miracle. Returning serve, Moses’s snake fought and ate both of Pharaoh’s snake.²

The lesson? The God of Israel is mightier than the Gods of Egypt!

As far as I can tell (and this is just my read of experts as I am not one), ancient Jews were just like other peoples in that they believed in the existence of multiple Gods and celestial beings but they only worshipped one. Hence, the first commandment: “You shall have no other Gods before me.” In this regard, Jews were henotheistic.³

It’s probably true that ancient Christians were also henotheistic, and the proponents of miracles today may be too. Instead of focusing on the credence Christians and other believers put onto non-Christian miracles, I want to instead focus on the demonstrations of power, as people expect it.

Namely, neither the modern equivalent of Egyptian priests or Moses are turning staffs to snakes, fighting, with an ultimate winner. I’m not even sure what that would look like!

Perhaps one could say that the modern competing Gods are those of the major religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.) and secular materialism. Perhaps every miracle is inherently a triumph of the God of Abraham over the God of modernity. Perhaps.

The problem is that in Pharaoh’s court, you couldn’t dispute that Moses’s staff turned into a snake and ate both of Pharaoh’s. As evident by substack discourse, this is not the case with modern miracles. If anything, this makes God more diminished than he was 2000 years ago. Given that it’s understood that God is omnipotent, being diminished compromises his character, and so even a Christian should be less inclined to believe in them.

Put simply, when God performed a miracle in Biblical times, it was spectacular, indisputable, and its implications were unambiguous, even among skeptical eyewitness. That’s not true for modern miracles! Even if you view purported modern miracles as spectacular and indisputable, their implications are very ambiguous.

Miracles Communicated A Theological Message

Miracles in the Bible were not exclusively or even mostly about showing up a rival tribal deity, they often did other important things, like communicate a theological truth as well. For instance, when Jesus heals someone in the gospels, it communicates something about the grace of God, as well as how one’s faith in Christ will lead you to be healed.⁴

But specific miracles in the Bible often convey deeper theological themes. The Israelites crossing the Red Sea/Reed Sea is a good example of this. Pete Enns, in his book Exodus for Normal People describes:

The crossing of the Sea of Reeds is a mini replay of creation. In Genesis, the earth was “formed out of” (“came out from under”) water. In Exodus, the hostile waters are split, allowing the dry land to appear and giving life to the Israelites. Then, in a replay of the flood story, the waters come crashing back down again on the unrighteous Egyptians. In both stories, water is tamed to yield life—and released to bring death. Throughout the Bible, water brings either death or life, depending on which side you’re on. The Creator God who ordered the cosmos at the dawn of time is now, in the same manner, saving God’s people from the enemy…salvation is like creation happening again on a smaller scale.⁵

Put low credence on the following specific claim; I read it somewhere but can’t find the citation, but it’s so cool I wanted to include it. I may be wrong, but trust me bro:

The Israelites crossing the red sea itself was a miracle that also completed a covenantal ritual. In Genesis 15, when God reveals his promise to Abraham, the subtext of verses 12-21, but specifically verse 17, is a portion of a covenantal ritual:

“When the sun had set and darkness had fallen, a smoking firepot with a blazing torch appeared and passed between the pieces”

In such a ritual, both parties pass through burnt offerings, but the kicker here is that Abraham fell asleep before he could do his part of the ritual, but God did not. God started the ritual (by appearing as a blazing torch passing between pieces sacrificed animals), but Abraham didn’t finish it!

But when the Israelites cross the Red/Reed sea (passing through parted water!), they completed the ritual and affirmed their part in the covenant. By virtue of being delivered from Egypt, the Israelites joined the covenant.

Again, I’m not sure how true that interpretation is, but it’s really cool and I wanted to share it.

The Bible is full of this layered symbolism, much of it lost to today’s common reader because the Bible was constantly in conversation with other religions and cultures. But the miracles that happened (if they happened!) communicated theological points in a spectacular manner that everyone could understand their significance.

Another example of this is in the book of Matthew 27:52-53, when,

“The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many.”

Regardless of the truth of this miracle, it’s conveying a theological point for the future: Namely that the dead will rise again after Jesus. Jesus is the first to be resurrected, and so too will others.

In all, Biblical miracles communicated theological points, usually novel ones that built on previous theologies. Compare this with purported contemporary miracles. They aren’t used to say anything new about God or theology, but to affirm old theological points.

To pick on the Catholics for a moment, the numerous Catholic miracles don’t radically alter or reform Catholic theology, so much as they affirm already believed teachings and dogma. There’s nothing inherently wrong with this, but as a student of the Bible and a cradle Protestant, it’s reasonable to view such miracles as out of continuity with biblical miracles.

Contemporary Spectacular Miracles Are Problematic

Thus far, I’ve used the term “miracles” broadly, but I want to draw a distinction here. Namely, I think there are two kinds of miracles: spectacular and personal.

• Spectacular miracles are the kind of miracles substack is debating: supernatural violations of our understanding of nature.

• Personal miracles are a matter of interpretation: weird, improbable occurrences that can be explained by luck or coincidence, but have personal significance for the one benefiting from it.

I draw the distinction between personal and spectacular miracles, because all of the miracles described in scripture are spectacular, while I suspect most people believe they have experienced a personal miracle.

Given what we’ve talked about thus far, that miracles were unambiguous and indisputable demonstrations of God’s superior power to other Gods, and that they communicated a theological message that influenced Christian teaching, I don’t believe Christians should expect spectacular miracles.⁶

If spectacular miracles happened, it would demonstrate:

• God seeing superior value in revealing himself as opposed to staying hidden,

• God’s need to demonstrate His superior power to other gods,

• God’s need to communicate additional theological truths beyond the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus

The problem is that, based on my understanding of Christian theology, philosophy, and history, I don’t think this is in line with the Christian God’s character.

Divine Hiddenness

If spectacular miracles did happen, they would violate many of the goods Christian philosophers and theologians purport, specifically those that respond to Divine Hiddenness. Richard Swinburne names some in the course of this video:

It doesn’t make sense that God hides himself to allow us to practice moral autonomy and goodness that we otherwise wouldn’t with God’s constant presence, and at the same time, reminds us of his constant presence with clear and incontrovertibly evidence through spectacular miracles.

That’s not to say that no species of miracles, like personal miracles, ever happen, but incontrovertible spectacular miracles contradict and violate the goods of divine hiddenness.

Does God Need To Demonstrate Superior Power To Other Gods?

Now, God revealing himself and performing miracles in biblical times is permissible because at the time miracles were supposedly pervasive. It was objectively a superstitious time, and God performing miracles wasn’t seen as extraordinary as it is today.

What’s more, if God is a Christian God, there are particular things He needed to reveal about himself or reality that could not be discovered without revelation. Call it the gospel. It makes sense that He would perform miracles to both draw attention to the gospel and His church at a time when the world is maximally receptive to miracles.

If its His intention to create the goods that come from divine hiddenness, it also makes sense that the revelation of the gospel through spectacular miracles would be limited, and after a time, He would retreat to hiddenness, while also invisibly sustaining the Christian church through the Holy Spirit.

Another way of putting this is that miracles were necessary early on to establish the faith of the Christian church, tradition, and scripture, but as time progressed, the only thing that was necessary to sustain those things was grace, the Holy Spirit, and Christian faithfulness.⁷

So does God need to demonstrate superior power to other Gods today? Does God need to be put to the test? The obvious, scriptural answer of this is no.⁸ The reason why, I presume, is because God is sovereign and above everything else. We don’t see the equivalent of cosmic rap battles anymore because Christianity forbids it. But even if this weren’t the case, I don’t see non-Christian Gods squaring off in miraculous battles, so why would God?

Skeptics would assert that the reason why we don’t see these cosmic battles anymore is because they probably didn’t ever happen, but the Christian need not concede that much. Non-Christian Gods don’t commit powerful and convincing miracles today, so why should the Christian God? He already performed the necessary miracles to save the world.

Was Jesus Not Enough?

If you believe that modern miracles are in continuity with biblical miracles, perhaps you don’t believe that God needs to be put to the test with other deities, but you maybe you see it as necessary for the second Biblical reason: conveying a theological truth. Some Christians (seem to) assert that evidence of supernaturalism is necessary to sustain the faith of Christians, but I think this speaks too lowly of the Christian God.

If the Gospel is perfect, God is omnipotent, the Holy Spirit is working in the world today, and the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus was sufficient for salvation, why would God need to perform miracles today? He’s already done quite enough and arguably these are all themselves miracles!

Put another way, the ongoing influence (and success!) of the Bible, the Christian tradition, and the Christian churches relative to other religions is the ultimate demonstration of power on society, more than a miraculous rap battle ever could be.

If you’re a Christian, you believe God is all-powerful and all-knowing. The idea that he would need to continue to intervene in history in spectacular ways to maintain people’s faith implies a degree of impotence and incompetence. His teachings and past miracles just aren’t good enough to save the world; he’s strong enough to stop the sun in the sky, but not enough to put forward a persuasive message? That doesn’t appear to be the Christian God to me.

But What About Personal Miracles?

In ancient times, miracles were demonstrations of power to persuade ancient people to follow one deity over another; for Christians, they also conveyed novel theological information. In modern times, the Christian God does not need to demonstrate power, because other spiritual beings are so impotent, while Christian influence is powerful. What’s more, if you believe in the power of God and the gospel of Jesus Christ, you also believe that miracles to communicate novel theology is not necessary.

The good news is, if you’re a Christian, it’s okay and perhaps even required to believe in personal miracles. As a Christian, you’re supposed to believe there is agency behind the randomness of the world, and that God is the source of that agency, that He loves you, looks out for you, and has a plan for you. Of course you should interpret some experiences of good luck as a little miracle!

If you accept personal miracles, you have the benefits of knowing God loves you without the costs of spectacular miracles that implicitly compromise the Christian God’s character. Though you sacrifice the persuasive power that comes with having hard evidence, in my opinion, “hard evidence that will convince non-believers” is not the point of Christian faith. But that’s a post for another time.

1. Throughout this post, I’m using terms like Hebrew, Israelite, and Jewish interchangeably. I know there’s a technical distinction for each, but I can’t remember it and don’t want to divert with an explanation.

2. Pause!

3. There is an interesting debate that the monotheism that developed in Judaism began as polytheism, but gradually evolved and consolidated different Gods into one. I am not qualified to have this debate, but I think it is interesting and I’m convinced of the arguments I’ve heard from it. There are bits and pieces of the Old Testament that hint as such things, including the first verse of Genesis having God use the phrase “we” a lot. Christians view these verses under a trinitarian lens, but for hundreds of years before anyone knew what the trinity was or Jesus was born, this was in the Torah and the priesthood didn’t bat an eye.

4. Sometimes this is literal, sometimes it’s aspirational. Sometimes people are literally healed, as the Apostles in Acts heal people in Christ’s name. when I say it’s aspirational, I don’t mean that it’s all metaphorical (see: meaningless), but that Christian readers who were reading or hearing these stories may not plausibly expect immediate healing to their current ailments, but when Jesus returns and there is a resurrection of the dead, followers of Christ would be given a glorified or perfected body.

5. I’m putting this in a footnote because I can’t find the citation, but I remember reading somewhere that in Genesis

6. Full cards on the table: I suspect that miracles don’t happen. I can never be certain, but by my personal definition of miracles, even God exists and bends the laws of nature, that’s not a miracle, because God bending the laws of nature is itself a law of nature, and thus not a miracle. I know that sounds pedantic and perhaps a little slimy, definition-wise, but I sincerely believe it.

7. I’m sure many Catholics will pull their hair out at the latent Protestantism on display here.

8. See: Deuteronomy 6:16, Matthew 4:7, and Luke 4:12