Introduction

(In this series of blog posts, we will experiment with longer formats and assistance from generative AI.)

The term “miracle” is one of the more liberally applied words in contemporary discourse, used to describe everything from remarkable medical recoveries to fortuitous sporting events. However, applying the same terminology to both the resurrection of Christ and a fortunate coincidence creates conceptual confusion. Meaningful dialogue on this subject requires semantic precision, particularly because one’s definition often predetermines one’s conclusions before the evidence is evaluated.

What, then, is the biblical understanding of a miracle? Is it merely an improbable event? A violation of natural law? Or something else entirely? To reach a coherent conclusion, we must follow a logical progression: Definition, Distribution, and finally, Implications.

Defining Miracles

The Necessity of Precise Definitions

Few terms in the English language are as semantically elastic as “miracle.” In modern parlance, the word is stretched to encompass everything from the resurrection of the Son of God to winning a high-stakes lottery.

The problem with this imprecise usage is that it renders substantive discourse impossible. If a miracle is simply defined as “a highly favourable event”, then every instance of good fortune becomes a Divine act, and every tragedy implies God’s absence. To engage with the biblical text seriously, we must allow it to establish its own parameters. To do this, we must first examine two prevalent definitions that lead to conceptual errors.

David Hume and the Hostile Definition

To understand modern scepticism toward miracles, one must examine the 18th-century philosopher David Hume. Hume famously defined a miracle as “a violation of the laws of nature”. While ostensibly neutral, Hume’s definition inherently stacks the deck, predetermining the debate’s outcome before any evidence is considered. This is because his definition relies on two unproven assumptions:

1.  The Assumption of Exhaustive Knowledge: Hume assumes that the “laws of nature” are exhaustive and completely understood. This lacks epistemological humility. The universe is profoundly complex; our inability to comprehend a phenomenon does not necessitate that it is a “violation” of nature. It may simply indicate the limits of our current understanding.

2.  The Assumption of a Closed System: This is the more critical assumption. Hume presupposes that specific divine action is contradictory by definition, conceiving of the universe as a sealed, mechanistic box. Consequently, miracles are rendered implausible from the outset.

This framework is highly prejudicial. Hume does not argue against miracles based on evidence; he defines them in such a way that belief in them is rendered suspect or irrational before the conversation begins.

Miracles as Statistical Improbability

Another common definition equates miracles with highly improbable events (e.g., “It was a miracle I survived”).

This definition correctly identifies that miracles often involve extraordinary events; surprise and anomaly are legitimate components of the concept. However, it fundamentally errs by equating improbability with Divine agency. Low probability does not establish supernatural causation; it merely raises explanatory questions. Rare events occur every day. Winning the lottery against astronomical odds is a mathematical anomaly, not a Divine intervention. Popular usage conflates rarity, surprise, and Divine action. These concepts are not identical. We must not assume that a miracle is synonymous with a very low-probability outcome, or vice versa.

Aquinas and the Classical Christian Definition

In contrast to Hume and popular misconceptions, the medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas provided a more robust framework. Aquinas described miracles as works done by God outside the order commonly observed in nature (Aquinas, 1928, p. 60).

This is a paradigm shift. Whereas Hume focused on mechanism (the violation of natural laws), Aquinas focuses on agency (who caused the event). The question becomes not “Which physical process occurred?” but “Who caused this event?”

The scholastic refinement of Aquinas’s definition posits that a miracle:

• Exceeds the powers of the created order (nature could not produce it autonomously).
• Serves divine purposes (it is not random).
• Reveals God (it communicates something about His nature).

This approach offers three significant advantages. First, it preserves the natural order, allowing science to remain a viable pursuit. Second, it preserves Divine freedom; God is not constrained to act exclusively through secondary causes. Third, it preserves meaning; miracles are the purposeful acts of a personal agent, not arbitrary disruptions of a cosmic machine.

The Biblical Language of Miracles

Scripture rarely relies on a single technical term for “miracle.” Instead, it utilizes a triad of concepts: signs, wonders (e.g. Matthew 24:24 ESV), and mighty works (Matthew 11:20 ESV).

This is significant, demonstrating that the biblical emphasis is on meaning rather than spectacle. Miracles function primarily as signs. Just as a road sign points to a destination, biblical miracles point to deeper realities, answering questions such as: Who is God? Who is His Son? What is God revealing or accomplishing in redemption?

Consider the wedding at Cana in John 2. While turning water into wine is a staggering event, the narrative is remarkably understated. Most of the attendees are unaware of its occurrence; they simply assumed the host had reserved the best wine for last. Only the servants and the disciples possessed the knowledge of what actually transpired. This demonstrates a biblical principle: miracles are often surprisingly discreet. They reveal rather than overwhelm, functioning as targeted signs rather than pyrotechnic displays.

Synthesizing these insights, we arrive at the following working definition: A biblical miracle is a specific act of God that serves a revelatory or redemptive purpose. This definition is robust because it circumvents Hume’s philosophical bias, aligns with biblical language, and explains both the rarity and the purposefulness of miracles. It also accounts for why miracles cluster around major redemptive events.

The Distribution of Miracles Throughout Scripture

A superficial engagement with Christianity (particularly through cinematic representations) might suggest that the biblical world is pervaded with the supernatural. However, a careful reading of the text reveals a very different pattern. The biblical world is not filled with miracles; rather, they are rare, clustered, purposeful, and intrinsically tied to revelation.

The Old Testament Pattern

One of the most striking features of the Old Testament is the extensive periods during which no miracles are recorded. For thousands of years, God’s people lived ordinary lives (farming, governing, and raising families) without supernatural intervention. Periods such as the Patriarchal era, the era of the Judges, much of the Monarchy, and the Post-exilic period are notably devoid of miraculous events.

Instead, the Old Testament presents major clusters of miracles:

• The Exodus: A concentrated burst of supernatural activity (the plagues, the Red Sea crossing, the manna) as God delivers His people and establishes His covenant.
• Elijah and Elisha: During a period of severe spiritual decline and Baal worship, these prophets ministered with accompanying droughts, fire from heaven, and resurrections.
• Daniel and the Exile: Miracles occur to preserve God’s people in foreign lands and demonstrate His sovereignty over earthly empires (e.g., the fiery furnace, the lion’s den).

The narrative makes it undeniable: across thousands of years of Old Testament history, miracles are the exception, not the rule.

The Significance of Clustering

Clustering of miracles is vital for a proper theological understanding. Some critics argue that miracles are merely “primitive science”, an attempt by ancient peoples to explain phenomena they did not understand. This fundamentally misreads the text.

Ancient Israelites understood ordinary causation perfectly well. They knew that planting wheat yielded crops of wheat in time, and that illness often led to death. They understood the regularity of the world; in fact, miracles presuppose this regularity. A miracle is only recognizable because nature is typically stable. If people rose from the dead weekly, resurrection would cease to be remarkable and would simply be a feature of the natural world. If the Red Sea parted every Tuesday, it would be a tidal schedule, not a sign. Biblical miracles rely on an orderly world to have any significant impact.

The New Testament Culmination

In the New Testament, the frequency of miracles increases dramatically, particularly within the Gospels and the early chapters of Acts. This increase corresponds to the arrival of God’s final revelation. The Messiah is present, the Kingdom of God is breaking into history, and miracles serve as the authenticating markers of this new era in God’s redemptive plan.

Despite this increased frequency, Christianity does not rest upon an accumulation of minor supernatural events. It ultimately rests on one monumental, history-altering miracle: the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The resurrection functions as the ultimate validation of Jesus and His claims, serving as the foundation of Christian belief. The miracle narrative of Scripture reaches a definitive climax here. The resurrection is not merely another miracle among others; it is the hinge upon which all of history turns.

Given this context, Jesus’ response to those who demanded signs is instructive. The crowds and religious leaders often sought signs for the wrong reasons: they desired certainty without repentance, and power without submission.

Jesus routinely refused such demands. In Matthew 12:39, He called them a “wicked and adulterous generation” for seeking a sign, promising only the sign of Jonah (foreshadowing His death and resurrection). In John 6, after feeding the five thousand, Jesus distanced Himself from the crowds who followed Him merely for sustenance. The theological principle is clear: miracles are designed to invite belief, not to force it. They are signs pointing to a reality; if one refuses to look where the sign points, the sign itself is rendered ineffective.

Miracles: The Exception, Not the Rule

Perhaps one of the most prevalent misconceptions about the Christian faith, held by both sceptics and some believers, is that the Bible posits a world where supernatural intervention constantly overrides the natural order. But this is not accurate. The Bible does not suggest that every event in a person’s life is a hidden message from the Almighty requiring decryption.

Rather, Scripture presents a world characterized by three elements: providence, regularity, and occasional miracles.

The Reliability of Creation

From the opening pages of Genesis, creation is declared “good”—ordered, structured, and reliable. Following the flood, God promised in Genesis 8:22: “While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.”

This is a promise of stability. In the biblical worldview, the regularity of nature is not evidence of God’s absence, but a manifestation of His faithful, sustaining providence. Predictable growth of a crop is not a miracle; it is the intended operation of God’s design. Stability, regularity and predictability in nature are foundational features of the biblical worldview, a perspective that historically underpinned the development of the scientific method and the sustainable scientific enterprise of sixteenth-century Christian Europe. As the humanist philosopher and science writer Loren Eiseley noted, this belief in a stable, ordered creation was the very soil in which modern science grew. (Eiseley, 1961, p. 62)

The Reality of Tragedy and Common Grace

The corollary of this predictability is that God chooses not to bend the laws of nature on a whim. For example, it has been extremely rare for God to intervene miraculously to punish people for breaking the moral law. This is explicitly affirmed in both the Old and New Testaments.

In Luke 13:1–5, Jesus addresses a tragedy regarding the collapse of the Tower of Siloam, which killed eighteen people. The cultural assumption of the day was straightforward: tragedy occurred because of greater guilt. Jesus rejects this causality, asking, “Do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” This is a vital correction. Bridges collapse, fires ravage, and accidents occur. Very, very rarely is a tragic event a targeted, divine message. Jesus firmly rejects this superstitious worldview. (Superstition is the tendency to view a wide variety of naturally occurring phenomena as indicators of supernatural messaging or outcomes). Almost without exception a structural failure, such as occurred with the Tower of Siloam, is simply a structural failure.

Similarly, in John 9, when the disciples ask Jesus about a man born blind, Jesus rejects the premise that his condition was caused by specific sin. The Old Testament book of Job is a masterclass in this principle; Job’s friends incorrectly assumed his suffering was a direct result of specific sin. But it was not.

Jesus taught against the notion that God constantly interferes in nature to favour the righteous, or to punish the unrighteous. In Matthew 5:45, Jesus states that God “makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.” This is the doctrine of common grace. Nature operates impartially. A Christian farmer does not receive preferential rainfall over a non-believing neighbour. God’s common grace sustains the entire world, irrespective of who acknowledges Him. Everyone can expect nature to be behave in a regular, predictable fashion, irrespective of their moral or religious outlook.

The Old Testament book of Ecclesiastes offers a starkly realistic view of human experience which hints at the complexity of causality in the natural world. In chapter 9, verse 11, the Teacher observes: “Again I saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favour to those with knowledge, but time and chance happen to them all.” Human beings operate “under the sun”—in a world where outcomes are not always proportional to righteousness or capability. Life contains inherent unpredictability. This verse articulates human limitation; we cannot perfectly predict or control outcomes, but we can expect nature to act with regularity and impartiality.

Further, passages in Deuteronomy and Isaiah explicitly condemn divination and omens. God requires attentiveness to His revelation, not speculation about hidden messages in circumstantial events. In place of superstition, the Bible advocates for rigorous discernment. The Bereans in Acts 17:11 are commended for examining the Scriptures daily to verify Paul’s teachings. When Thomas doubted the resurrection, Jesus did not demand blind faith; He offered empirical evidence. Christianity values truth, investigation, and careful examination.

The Dignity of Ordinary Means

Perhaps the most profound corrective to a “miracle-saturated” worldview is the frequency with which Scripture depicts God working through entirely ordinary means.

The Apostle Paul advised Timothy to use a little wine for his stomach ailments, prescribing common medicine rather than a miraculous intervention (1 Timothy 5:23). When King Hezekiah was miraculously healed, the accompanying treatment was a poultice of figs (Isaiah 38:21). In the parable of the Good Samaritan, the neighbour administers first-century medical care—bandages, oil, and wine—rather than simply praying for a miracle (Luke 10). The book of Leviticus outlines detailed public health and quarantine protocols for infectious diseases, and in Acts 27, during a shipwreck, the sailors rely on practical seamanship to survive.

Further, Jesus and the apostles regarded the medical care of their day as useful and valid. Jesus stated, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick” (Matthew 9:12), assuming the normal practice of medicine. Mark notes the woman with the bleeding issue had suffered under many doctors (Mark 5:26) without divine criticism of her seeking medical help. Additionally, Paul refers to Luke as “the beloved physician” (Colossians 4:14), valuing his medical expertise as a gift from God rather than opposing it to divine healing.

Seeking medical care is not a lack of faith. The surgeon’s skill and the body’s natural healing processes are provisions of God’s common grace. To demand a miracle when God has provided ordinary means is not faith; it is presumption.

The Grace of Endurance

A careful reading of the New Testament reveals a significant narrative shift. While the Gospels and early Acts feature frequent miracles, as the New Testament period unfolds (particularly in the Epistles) there is a noticeable reduction in miraculous events and a corresponding increase in the exhortation to persevere under suffering.

The later New Testament presents a reality where prominent figures of the faith endure severe, unhealed ailments. The Apostle Paul, who both witnessed and performed many miracles, was not granted healing for his own “thorn in the flesh.” Paul pleaded for its removal three times, but God denied the request, stating, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness” (2 Corinthians 12:9). The hoped for miracle was replaced by the grace to endure.

This pattern recurs throughout Paul’s ministry. He left Trophimus sick in Miletus (2 Timothy 4:20). He instructed Timothy to use wine for his stomach rather than receiving an instantaneous healing. Epaphroditus fell critically ill (Philippians 2:27), and Paul attributes his recovery to God’s mercy, implying a gradual recuperation rather than an immediate miracle.

This shift carries noteworthy implications. The Christian life is not characterized by a perpetual succession of divine interventions. It is a life of endurance and faithfulness in a world where bodies fail and suffering is real. The New Testament does not present unhealed sickness as a failure of faith; rather, it presents it as the very arena in which God’s sustaining grace is displayed. The ultimate victory is not the avoidance of suffering, but persevering through it with a hope anchored in future restoration.

That said, Christians are encouraged to pray about anything that might otherwise have made them anxious (Philippians 4:6). Paul had a reason to stop praying for his thorn after God specifically communicated with him, but the default posture of the believer is perseverance and persistence in faithful prayer (e.g. Luke 11:5–8, Romans 12:12).

A Coherent Alternative

When miracles are defined biblically, their distribution within Scripture is observed, and their implications for our world are understood, the Christian faith presents a remarkably balanced worldview. It firmly rejects three significant errors:

1.  Naturalism: The closed-system view that God never acts. This Humean perspective renders miracles impossible by definition, resulting in a cold, mechanistic universe.

2.  Superstition: The view that every event is a divine sign requiring decryption. This fosters anxiety and paranoia, attributing every tragedy or stroke of luck to a direct, hidden divine message.

3.  Miracle Obsession: The belief that God constantly suspends natural laws and that sufficient faith will always guarantee a miraculous intervention. This can lead to shattered faith when God, in His wisdom, chooses to work through ordinary providence.

The biblical alternative is robustly coherent: a stable creation, divine providence, occasional miracles, and careful discernment.

Christianity posits neither a closed universe nor a chaotic one. It teaches a world governed by God’s ordinary, faithful providence, punctuated by rare and purposeful miracles that reveal His redemptive purposes. This paradigm explains why miracles matter (they point to the Redeemer), why they are uncommon (the world is stable, and signs are necessary only at key moments), and why Scripture directs believers toward wisdom, humility, and trust rather than superstition.

---

Aquinas, Thomas. (1928). The Summa Contra Gentiles of Saint Thomas Aquinas, The Third Book. London: Burns Oates & Washbourne Ltd.

Eiseley, Loren. (1961). Darwin’s Century: Evolution and the Men Who Discovered It. New York: Anchor Books Doubleday & Company, Inc.