George Desnoyers
Below I will distinguish between Biblical miracles and theological miracles. But, first, let’s look at some dictionary definitions of “miracle.” The word normally means a marvelous event, or an event that causes wonder. Zondervan’s “Bible Dictionary” goes on to say, “The use of ‘miracle’ in Christian theology includes, but goes beyond, the meanings of the ancient words. A miracle is (1) an extraordinary event, inexplicable in terms of ordinary natural forces, (2) an event that causes the observers to postulate a superhuman personal cause, or (3) an event that constitutes evidence (a ‘sign’) of implications much wider than the event itself.”
The Catholic “Dictionary of the Bible” edited by John L. McKenzie, S.J., has an excellent article on miracles. In it, one learns that Biblical Hebrew had no word for miracle, so words for “sign,” “wonder,” or “portent” were employed. The word “ot” (see, e.g., Is. 7:14), thought of as “sign,” or “something which attracts attention,” was used for some things we would consider miraculous, but also for other things not even close to what we would call miracles, e.g. the strange conduct of Isaiah when he went around naked and barefoot (Is. 20:3).
Out of curiosity, I also looked the word up in an ordinary household dictionary, and the cutest and simplest definition was, “a wonderful thing.”
Biblical miracles versus theological miracles
A. What are Biblical Miracles?
Not all miracles are the same. It is important to distinguish between Biblical miracles and theological miracles. Biblical miracles are stories told to inspire wonder and belief. The words most often used in the Bible mean “sign,” or “wonder.” They could be called “wonder stories.” And because they are intended to convey truths related to what we have come to know as theology, the Biblical miracles are sometimes called “theological wonder stories.” Few trained theologians understand the Biblical miracles to be literal accounts of events as they really happened. This is the case in most theological schools and seminaries. However, most Christian churches discourage the laity from questioning the literalness of Biblical miracles. This is because questioning the literalness of Biblical miracles is perceived as more dangerous to the faith of the laity than is taking the Biblical miracles literally.
B. What are Theological miracles?
The other kind of miracle, the theological miracle, has been defined by the Church’s theologians. This is a miracle in which at least one known “law” of nature is contravened. By “contravened” is meant that God has intervened into the working of nature so that at least one of the normal effects of nature’s laws does not happen. This is the kind of miracle the Church likes to see (but definitely does not always insist on) when it is considering a person for sainthood.1
Many Protestants who believe in miracles through the special intervention of God do not say that a natural law was “contravened.” Instead, they would say that at least one law of nature was “suspended.” Using that word, instead of “contravened,” however, has a serious disadvantage. People do not like to think that God turns his laws of nature on and off. Most people want a God more reliable than that. After all, we like science. We want to be able to reproduce scientific experiments and always get the same result. With the Catholic idea of “contravention,” there is no claim that a law of nature was suspended. It is only said that God’s special intervention stopped a normal effect of the law’s application from occurring.
The Bible’s authors did not conceptually know of the type of miracle I have called a “theological miracle.” This is because our understanding of the “laws of nature” is far more sophisticated and scientific than that which any Biblical authors would have had. An interesting piece of evidence that Paul, at least, did not distinguish miracles contravening a law of nature from those that don’t can be seen in Acts 26 where Paul speaks of his conversion. While there are some things in Paul’s conversion story that you could reasonably argue did contravene a law of nature, many people feel verse eight shows that Paul thought that his conversion, itself, was a miracle. Paul says, “Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?” Then he tells the story of his conversion, implying that his conversion is something like, or at least can be compared with, a resurrection of the dead. So, he is comparing a miracle (raising the dead) which virtually no-one would dispute violates a law of nature with an event (Paul’s conversion) that certainly cannot be demonstrated to do so. But, as I said, Paul could not possibly have had the same understanding of the laws of nature that we have today.
Footnote:
1Through the years candidates for sainthood have been required to produce a particular number of miracles (via their intercession with God). The number has depended somewhat on the category of saint the person is suggested to be. For instance, those who are to be saints because of martyrdom (the highest category) are required to produce a smaller number than those who become saints because they were confessors (people who lived exemplary lives). The theory is that martyrdom is especially powerful in its ability to purge all the sins in even a life that has been far from exemplary. Martyrdom is also sometimes easy to prove, at least the death-at-the-hand-of-others aspect. The numbers of required miracles for various categories of saints change from time to time.
Sometimes the criterion of a contravention of a law of nature has been relaxed, so that what I have called a “theological miracle” is not required. When Edith Stein was proposed for sainthood, the committee investigating the claims that she had interceded to produce miracles made a controversial decision. They decided that Edith had interceded to miraculously cure a child from a Tylenol overdose even though both the child’s own doctor and the world’s leading authority on Tylenol overdose in children said the cure was not a miracle.
Some folks say there was an over-eagerness to make Edith Stein a saint for a political reason. When a person is proposed for sainthood, persons or committees are generally appointed to investigate the person’s life, and all relevant facts. Sometimes one person is appointed to be an advocate on behalf of the proposed sainthood, and another person is appointed to make the strongest possible case against sainthood. It seems to be an interesting process, but one argument against it is that it too often produces the result that the pope wants. And sometimes the pope’s desire is based on the need for a saint in a particular geographical region, the need for a saint to serve as a patron for a particular group, or the need for a saint to bring attention to an important class of sufferers. Edith Stein was allegedly made a saint because one was deemed necessary to represent Christian victims of the Holocaust. [She was a Christian, but it is thought her death was because of her Jewish descent.]