Do the Nature Miracles of Jesus Have any Evidential Value? Part 1

In previous columns we have defended both the possibility and the evidential value of miracles.i Still, some skeptics have long argued that not all miracles are equal. Some can be justified while others are considered frivolous and even unworthy of God. Such is even the case with the miracles of Jesus. Some critics are willing to accept the authenticity of His healing miracles on the grounds that they were performed as humanitarian acts. On the other hand, His nature miracles are often rejected for a supposed lack of apparent purpose.ii 

A classic example of this skepticism was Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), a famous German theologian and philosopher. He is considered the “Father of Liberal Theology.” Concerning his views on the miracles of Jesus, A. B. Bruce writes: 

It might thus plausibly be affirmed, with reference to some if not all of these nature miracles, that they are merely show-miracles, serving no other purpose than to evince the divine, supernatural power of Jesus. If this were really the fact, the prejudice against this class of miracles would be shared by many who do not stumble at the miraculous as such, and one would feel strongly inclined to sympathize with the sentiment frankly expressed by Schleiermacher that the entire elimination of nature miracles from the Gospels would be a welcome result of criticism and exegesis.iii 

More recently, New Testament critic Bart Ehrman had this to say about Jesus’s miracles: 

So abundantly attested are Jesus’s miracle-working abilities that even scholars who are otherwise skeptical of the supernatural biases of our sources sometimes claim that whatever else one can say about him, Jesus was almost certainly a healer and an exorcist.  

It has long been interesting to me that such moderate skeptics choose to believe that Jesus could heal people and cast out demons, but do not conclude, as well, that he could perform miracles with nature. … Is it because the healing and exorcism miracles are even more abundantly attested than the nature miracles? Probably. But could it also be because these nature miracles are so much harder to believe? Possibly that as well.iv 

In the next few columns, we will examine the nature miracles of Jesus (see note 2) and offer responses to objections leveled against them. 

Turning Water to Wine  

(John 2:1-11) 

Jesus, His mother, and His disciples are invited to a wedding at Cana in Galilee. When the wine runs out, Mary approaches Jesus about the problem. He replies to her, “What business do you have with Me, woman? My hour has not yet come.”v Jesus then turns six large jars of water into the choicest wine. Critics charge that, in 2:4, Jesus would never have addressed His mother disrespectfully, that He would not have performed a miracle for a trivial reason like saving the host from embarrassment, and that His statement, “My hour has not yet come,” indicates He was not yet ready or able to reveal His divine power. To these charges we can offer several replies. 

First, the Greek word translated “woman” (gunai) was a term of respect used in addressing queens and persons of distinction, not a denigration. Second, the expression “What business…?” translates a common Hebrew idiom. The NIV renders it “why do you involve me?” In other words, Jesus is asking Mary “What do you expect me to do?” Third, Jesus raises the issue of it not yet being His “hour” (NIV, “time”). I believe Jesus was saying, “It’s not yet time to make a public display of my power.” Notice that Jesus limits the witnesses to just His disciples and a few servants. 

What about the big question? Was this a “trivial” use of His miraculous power? Verse 11 gives us the answer: “This beginning of His signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and revealed His glory; and His disciples believed in Him.” Though His audience was small, it included His key disciples. He showed them His true nature—His glory—and they believed in Him. They didn’t just believe that He could do parlor tricks; they believed He was the Messiah! Clearly, the disciples saw in this nature miracle evidential value. They correctly drew the connection between the miracle and the divine nature of Christ. 

Stilling the Tempest  

(Matthew 8:23-27; Mark 4:35-41; Luke 8:22-25) 

In this particular narrative, objections to its authenticity are raised on three grounds: 

The personification of the wind and the sea is a superstitious error which Jesus would not have committed. 

If the storm had actually been that great, what became of the other boats? 

Why did the disciples ask, “What kind of a man is this, that the winds and the sea obey Him?” if they had spent so much time with the Messiah? 

In the first objection, there is a subtle attack upon the deity of Christ by denying His ability to control the forces of nature. In the nineteenth century, German theologian Adolf von Harnack (1851-1930) declared, “We no longer believe that a storm was stilled by a man, and we shall never believe it again.”vi Bruce explains von Harnack’s reasoning: 

This is criticism based on a dogmatic theory as to the relation in which Jesus stood to the power by which His miracles were wrought. The theory is that Jesus did not perform miracles by a power resident in Himself and at the disposal of His own will like any natural faculty, but simply drew by faith or prayer the power of God His Father who was ever ready to lend Him all needful support in connection with His Messianic mission.vii 

In reality, there were two great forces at odds here: the power of the storm versus the power of the divine Messiah. Without a doubt, the storm was intense. Matthew uses the term (seismos), “a shaking,” which is generally used for an earthquake, to describe the storm. Mark and Luke both use the word, (lailaps), “a furious storm,” “a hurricane.” The storm was so great that even the experienced sailors feared for their lives (Matthew 8:25)! Against this fury was the matchless power of Christ. All three Gospels indicate He “rebuked” (epetimaesen) the winds and the sea, and Mark adds that He said, “Hush, be still.” The wind immediately died down and the sea became calm. 

Was Jesus addressing the storm as if it were a living being, acting out a superstitious role play as critics claim? Two responses are possible here. One, the word “rebuked” and the expression, “Hush, be still” are the same words Mark used to describe Jesus’s casting out a demon (Mark 1:25). Consequently, some commentators have suggested the storm was demonically caused, and Jesus was addressing the demons behind the squall, not the storm itself. However, nothing in the text suggests such an interpretation, as there is no mention of demonic forces. Two, Jesus addressed the storm as He did, not for the storm’s sake, but for the disciples’ benefit. He could easily have quelled the storm with a wave of His hand, but by issuing a command He made it clear to the Twelve He was exercising His power over nature. 

The second objection comes from Mark’s Gospel, which is the only one to mention there were other boats besides the one carrying Jesus and the Twelve (Mark 4:36). It is possible Mark included this detail because he was in one of the other boats. 

So, what became of those boats? We are not told. If Mark were on one of those boats and it sank, presumably he would not have survived to write his Gospel! If none of the other boats sank, which is quite possible, this fact still does not lessen the impact of the storm. They could have come just as close to sinking as the disciples’ vessel had and still escaped unharmed due to Jesus’s action. Or, they may have turned back to land at the first sign of a squall. In any event, the silence regarding the fate of the boats does not affect the authenticity of the accounts. 

The third objection reasons that the disciples had already witnessed Jesus turning water into wine, healing numerous victims of every sort of ailment, and even casting out demons. They had “believed on Him” after His miracle at Cana and Nathanael even called Him “the Son of God” (John 1:49). Why should they wonder what kind of man He is to be capable of such a miracle? 

The obvious answer is the disciples did not yet fully comprehend what it meant for Jesus to be God’s Son. Mark indicates (vs. 41) they became very afraid when they realized He had the power to command even the wind and the sea. It is safe to say they had never encountered anyone who had such power, and they would never again meet anyone like Jesus. Considering all this, their reaction was not at all unexpected.