My stand on miracles has always been to believe in general and to be skeptical in particular. Claims of modern day miracles tend to be made in similar situations to claims of UFO or sasquatch sightings. All too often there is a lack of scientific evidence to back up the claim -- or as in the case of certain psychics or evangelical "ministries" -- large sums of money riding on belief. And yet, all things are possible for God. That is after all the point of faith.But scripture stories of miracles fall into a different category. Asking for scientific proof for a miracle that happened thousands of years ago seems to me to be unreasonable. So the only basis for endorsing a miracle from that long ago seems to be a doctrine of scriptural inerrancy I don't subscribe to. Did they happen? I don't think its possible to know or even to agree on what would count as reasonable evidence.
For me miracle stories in scripture point beyond themselves to something other than the miracle. They are signs and not merely wonders.
This miracle of Peter telling a lame man to get up and walk coming as it does so closely on the story of Pentecost stands as a kind of confirmation of Peter's claims in his sermon. It vindicates the Christian faith and also that doctrine of salvation that Larry and I have been calling theosis: that salvation is not just a get out of jail free card but an awakening of the Divine in and through us to the point where we become divine.
For me the real miracle in this story is not the healing -- scripture is filled with healings. It was the authority Peter exercises. He doesn't pray to God for the healing rather, as his Teacher before him did, commands the person into wholeness.
8 comments:
An interesting post -- I love the idea of theosis. I have no problem with the miracle having occurred as written, its just a bit disappointing to me -- perhaps because the wonder of it tends to overshadow the sign of it, at least for me.
I was reading a little about theosis, trying to understand it ... ti says that now we bear the "image" of God, but not the "likeness", but that is what changes in theosis? Can you expalin more about it?
The biblical basis for theosis is:
2 Peter 1: 3-4. By his divine power, he has lavished on us all the things we need for life and for true devotion, through the knowledge of him who has called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these, the greatest and priceless promises have been lavished on us, that through them you should share the divine nature and escape the corruption rife in the world through disordered passion.
Most of the theological stuff is attempts to qualify this passage so it won't really say what it seems to say.
Good post, David; for those of us who are agnostic about the miracles it certainly seems incumbent to find some meaning in them, which you have done here: Peter's manner indicates that he has received the power of Jesus and uses it responsibly.
A bit later we will read how another touch of the spirit began to cure him from the tribalistic impulse so prevalent among the Jews-- of his day and of ours.
There's an old story about Martin Luther that I can't verify that speaks to miracles in a similar way.
Luther asked: What is the true miracle of Christmas? That God should incarnate himself as a human being? Or that a virgin gives birth to him? Or that angels appeared to shepherds in the night? Or that a star moved through the sky to lead the magi?
No, God being God, none of these wonderful events are especially miraculous -- they're the sort of thing that God does every day.
The real miracle of Christmas, Luther said, was that when the angel told Joseph that Mary was pregnant and would give birth to the Messiah, Joseph believed it.
Thanks Paul, I really like that story.
There are miracles, and then there is magic. Both are miraculous, except that the second type doesn't have an explanation. And I'm not saying Jesus did magic or didn't do magic. I'm just saying he did miracles. And so do we.
The miracle of the loaves and fishes is a good example. Was it a magic trick? Or did Jesus simply shame all those people into sharing the food they had hidden under their cloaks? Was the miracle the changing of human nature, making it defy self-interest and cultural taboos and class structures, etc.? Or was it magic?
If we were able to tell people from 250 years ago that today there would exist international organizations that exist solely to help unfortunate people around the world -- prisoners, human rights victims, drought victims, economic victims -- they would believe it would have to be magic. Yet we have these organizations. They are our miracles. Over 250 years, we have managed to change human nature enough to do these things.
I think this is what Jesus meant by miraculous healings. If we live by the teachings he was promoting, we would be able to work miracles.
It has just taken us 2000 years to take him up on the offer.
Magic is what we call the miracles performed in somebody else's temple.
Post a Comment