The Miracles of Jesus

Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Deity of ChristMiraclesMiracles

In John 20:31, we learn why Jesus performed miracles—so “that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.” The miracles of Christ recorded in the Gospel accounts proved that Jesus had been given all power in heaven and on Earth. Trustworthy men documented that He had power over the human body and could heal sickness and disease with the touch of His hand (Matthew 8:1-4). On other occasions, He proved that He had power over the spiritual world by forgiving sins (Luke 5:20-24) and casting out demons (Luke 6:18). He also had power to control the physical world by calming storms and walking on water (Matthew 14:25-33). And His power over death was shown through His glorious resurrection three days after His crucifixion (John 20:24-29).

Jesus’ miracles were designed to prove His oral claim to be the Son of God. Even the Pharisees, His worst enemies, admitted: “This man works many signs. If we let Him alone like this, everyone will believe in Him” (John 11:47-48). Yet they steadfastly refused to believe that He was God’s Son. Many of them even saw Him raise Lazarus from the dead, heal the sick, and cause the blind to see. Yet they would not admit to His deity.

Why should it be any different today? Anyone who takes an honest look at the evidence should see that this world must have had a Creator. The Bible is inspired by that Creator, and informs us that Jesus performed miracles to prove He was the Son of God. Yet many people will brush aside all the evidence—just as the Pharisees did—and deny Christ’s divinity. The Judgment Day will find those people hearing the words of Christ: “Woe unto you!… For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes” (Matthew 11:21).

CONCLUSION

Miracles are only impossible in a world with no God. Throughout history, God has used miracles to create the Universe, to add credibility to the men who had been entrusted with His message, and to accomplish His divine purposes. Jesus of Nazareth repeatedly performed miraculous deeds in order to prove to His followers (and to His enemies!) that He was indeed the Son of God. Sadly, many people during Christ’s day refused to believe in Him as God’s Son. And, just as sadly, many today stubbornly refuse to believe in the Sonship of Christ. As Christ told the unbelieving Pharisees of His day, so will He tell the modern-day disbelievers, “Woe unto you!”

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

 

Is it a Miracle?

Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Creation vs. EvolutionExistence of GodAtheismAtheism

A person cannot read many pages from the New Testament (or the Old Testament for that matter) without coming across a miracle. Miracles spatter the pages of the Bible like polka dots on a Dalmatian: the 10 plagues in Egypt; healing of people with leprosy; the resurrection of dead people; the virgin birth; etc. Yet many educated people deny the idea that miracles were either real or possible. They maintain instead that the wonders documented in the Bible must have been fictitious, or had a purely natural explanation. Did Jesus and others in the Bible perform mighty miracles, or are the stories merely “wishful thinking” on the part of superstitious, unscientific fanatics?

WHAT IS A MIRACLE?

In order to decide if miracles actually occurred, we first must understand the definition of a miracle. A miracle is an event that defies natural laws and that can be accounted for only by a supernatural explanation. For example, walking on a road is not a miracle. But defying the law of gravity and walking on water is. There is nothing extraordinary about reviving a person by using CPR. But there is something miraculous about raising a person who has been dead for several days.

SOME JUST SAY “NO” TO MIRACLES

Some people adamantly claim that any type of miracle is absolutely impossible. Why do they say “no” to miracles? There are many reasons, but perhaps the most important is that they do not believe that God exists (or that if He does, He does not intervene in the natural world). A person who believes that the Universe and its contents evolved through natural processes over billions of years cannot believe in miracles because he or she thinks that nothing exists outside of nature. As the late, eminent astronomer of Cornell University, Carl Sagan, put it: “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be” (1980, p. 4). Since a miracle is an event that has a supernatural explanation, no such event ever could occur in a world where only natural forces operate. Once a person denies the greatest miracle of all—creation at the hand of God—then he or she is forced to deny that miracles of any kind can occur.

Those who hold to such a view are correct about one thing: If God does not exist (or if He does but is unwilling to intervene in His creation) then miracles cannot occur. On the other hand, if God does exist (and it can be argued convincingly that He does!), then miracles not only are possible, but also probable. It makes perfectly good sense to conclude that if God created this Universe, then on occasion He might intervene through miracles to accomplish His divine purposes.

GOD WOULDN’T BREAK THE LAW, WOULD HE?

Another idea suggests that God did, in fact, create the Universe, but that His activities stopped at creation. Afterwards, He no longer intervened in this world through miracles, because that would break the natural laws that He had established at the time of creation.

The problem with this idea is that it does not consider the fact that the natural laws do not apply to God (since He is not a “natural” Being). The laws of nature are inviolate and cannot be broken. For instance, the First Law of Thermodynamics states that matter or energy can be neither created nor destroyed in nature. The two words “in nature” must be included for the law to be worded correctly. Nothing in nature—man, beasts, or matter—can break this law. However, since God is not part of nature, the law obviously does not apply to Him.

To illustrate, think of the Universe as one room. God established natural laws that apply to everything in that room, and then He locked the door. It is impossible for matter or energy to be created or destroyed in that room. But, suppose that God unlocks the door and puts another chair in the room or takes a chair out of the room. Did God break the law He established in the room? No, because everything in the room (Universe) still functions according to the natural laws, but since God is outside of the room then the laws that operate inside the room do not apply to Him.

Miracles are only impossible in a world with no God, or a non-intervening Deity. Once God’s existence and His ability to operate in the natural world are established, it makes perfect sense to conclude that He occasionally might do supernatural things to accomplish His goals. God is not a cosmic bandit Who sneaks around “breaking the rules” of nature. Rather, He is the sovereign Creator Who reserves the right to operate whenever and however He sees fit.

REFERENCE

Sagan, Carl (1980), Cosmos (New York: Random House).

---

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

Reproduction Stipulations→

 

Did God "Create" or "Make" the World?

Eric Lyons

Creation vs. EvolutionTheistic Evolution

Oftentimes, those who advocate the view which suggests that the Earth is billions of years old suggest that God initially “created” the Earth (Genesis 1:1) and then later “made” (i.e., re-created) it in six days. As awkward as this sounds to those who take a more straightforward (and accurate) approach to reading Scripture, these old-Earth-advocates (oftentimes referred to as Gap theorists) make a distinction between the Hebrew words bara (to create) and asah (to make or fashion). They claim that bara and asah always mean two different things in relation to God’s creative acts. For example, not long ago I heard a gentleman on the radio teach that Exodus 20:11 does not mean that God created the Universe and everything in it in six days but that He “fashioned” or “re-created” the Universe in six days after originally creating it billions of years earlier. This man based his whole argument on the “fact” that “to make” does not mean “to create.”

What is the truth of the matter? After surveying the Old Testament, one finds that no distinction is made between God’s creating (bara) and His making (asah) in the creation account or anywhere else for that matter. The fact is, these words are used interchangeably throughout the Old Testament in reference to what God has done. In Genesis 1-2, the words “created” (bara) and “made” (asah) are used fifteen times in reference to God’s work. It is clear to the unbiased reader that these words do not stand at odds with one another; rather, they teach one central truth—that God created and/or made the Universe and everything in it in six literal days.

In Genesis 1:26 it is recorded that God said: “Let us make (asah) man in Our image, according to Our likeness.” Then we are told in the very next verse that He “created (bara) man in His own image.” How can one assert (logically) that in these two verses “make” and “create” refer to different creations? Near the beginning of the next chapter, we read: “Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created (bara) and made (asah). This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created (bara), in the day that the Lord God made (asah) the earth and the heavens” (Genesis 2:3-4). Clearly, these words are used interchangeably in the creation account and throughout the rest of the Bible when referring to what God did “in the beginning” (cf. Psalm 148:1-5; Nehemiah 9:6; Exodus 20:11; Genesis 1:21,25).

Did God intend to communicate a different message every time He used different words to describe something? Absolutely not! Just as you may tell one person, “I mowed the yard,” you might mention to someone else that “I cut the grass.” You have spoken one truth, even thou you used two phrases. Oftentimes we do this when telling a story in order to escape monotony. When the psalmist proclaimed, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork” (19:1), his aim was not to teach two separate truths, but to teach one truth with different words. Later, when he wrote, “The earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness, the world and those who dwell therein” (24:1), he again was teaching one central message with different words. Likewise, when the Bible says that God “created” the world it means nothing more (or less) than God “made” the world (and vice versa).

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

 

Was the "Image of God" Destroyed by Sin?

Eric Lyons

Doctrinal MattersDifficult PassagesDifficult PassagesDifficult Passages

Many theologians through the years have claimed that the “image of God” spoken of in Genesis 1:26-27 refers to a spiritual perfection that was lost in the Fall. Thus, they have concluded that modern man no longer bears the image of God. Reformer Martin Luther believed that the “image of God” was an original righteousness that was lost completely. He thus proclaimed: “I am afraid that since the loss of this image through sin we cannot understand it to any extent.” Oftentimes John Calvin spoke of the image of God as having been destroyed by sin, obliterated by the Fall, and utterly defaced by unrighteousness. More recently, religionist/anthropologist Arthur Custance, in his 1975 book, Man in Adam and in Christ, observed: “Genesis tells us that man was created in a special way, bearing the stamp of God upon him which the animals did not bear. Genesis also tells us that he lost it” (p. 103). Does the language of Genesis 1:26-27 refer only to Adam and Eve, as these writers would have us to believe? Or does it refer to all mankind in general?

The Bible reveals that man still retains the image of God after the Fall. Genesis 9:6 states: “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man.” According to this passage, fallen man still bears the image of God. The record of Adam and Eve’s fall had been recorded earlier in the book of Genesis; that man had become a rank sinner is stated clearly in the immediate context of the passage (“…every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood”—8:21). Although God’s assessment is correct in regard to mankind, murder is forbidden because man is made in the image of God—that is, he still bears that image. If one argues that this passage speaks only about the past and says nothing about the future, he does violence to the meaning of the passage. Moses, writing about 2,500 years after the Fall, said that the reason murder is wrong is because the victim is someone created in the image of God. If man no longer bears the image of God after the Fall, these words would have been meaningless to the Israelites (and are worthless for man today).

In the New Testament, one can read where James wrote: “But the tongue can no man tame; it is a restless evil, it is full of deadly poison. There with bless we the Lord and Father; and therewith curse we men, who are made after the likeness of God” (3:8-9, emp. added). The English verb “are made” (ASV) derives from the Greek gegonotas, which is the perfect participle of the verb ginomai. The perfect tense in Greek is used to describe an action brought to completion in the past, but whose effects are felt in the present. For example, when the Bible says, “It is written,” this is usually in the perfect tense. Scripture was written in the past, but is applicable to the present. The thrust of the Greek expression translated “who are made after the likeness of God,” is that humans in the past have been made according to the likeness of God and they are still bearers of that likeness. For this reason, it is inconsistent to worship God and curse men with the same tongue.

Although sin is destructive to man and repulsive to God, the Bible does not teach that the “image of God” was destroyed by sin’s entrance into the world. Rather, modern man still is created in God’s image. How thrilling and humbling it is to know that all men possess inherent characteristics that liken them to God and differentiate them from the lower creation.

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

 

The "Days" of Creation

Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Misc.

It often has been suggested that perhaps the days discussed in Genesis 1 were not literal 24-hour periods. Maybe they were long eons of time during which evolution could have taken place. After all, the word translated “day” in Genesis 1 can have up to seven different meanings, and on rare occasions it can refer to a period of time longer than 24 hours. How long were the days of the creation week, really? Could it be the case the creation week was seven long eons of time that consisted of millions or billions of years each?

 

No. The author of Genesis wanted his readers to understand, in no uncertain terms, that the six days of creation were literal, 24-hour periods. Here are the reasons we know this to be true. First, the author defined the word “day” (Hebrew yōm) for the reader by saying that it was composed of “an evening and a morning” (Genesis 1:5). The exact rotation of the Earth is described by this phrase, which was the common way for Hebrews to describe a literal day.

Second, whenever a number comes before the word “day” in the Old Testament in non-prophetical literature like Genesis 1, it always means a literal, 24-hour period. Third, whenever the word “day” appears in the plural form (yamim) in non-prophetical literature, it always means a literal day. In fact, over 700 times the Old Testament uses the word yamim in such a manner, and it always means a literal day in its non-prophetic uses. Therefore, when Exodus 20:11 states: “For in six days (yamim) the Lord made the heavens and the earth,” there can be absolutely no doubt that the text means six literal days.

Fourth, the author of Genesis had other ways to indicate to the reader that the “days” were long eons of time. He could have used the Hebrew word dôr, which means long periods of time. But he did not; instead he used the word day, modified it with the phrase “evening and morning,” put numerals before it, and in Exodus 20:11 and Exodus 31:17 made it plural. He used practically every means at his disposal to show that the days were not long periods of time, but instead were literal, 24-hour periods. Thus, the idea that the billions of years needed for evolution occurred during creation week simply cannot be defended.

But what about 2 Peter 3:8 which states that “with the Lord one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.” Isn’t this New Testament passage teaching that to God, a day could be a very long time? No, it is not. Let us consider the passage in its appropriate context. In 2 Peter 3:8, the apostle’s discussion has nothing to do with the length of the days in Genesis 1. Rather, he is discussing the “last days” (3:3; i.e., the Christian dispensation) and Christ’s Second Coming. Some, said Peter, would suggest that since Christ had not returned already, then He was not going to return—ever! But Peter reminded his readers that God is not bound by time. He can do more in one day than humans can do in a thousand years, or, conversely, He may wait a thousand years to do what humans wish He would do in a day. Nevertheless, God keeps His promises (3:9). It is interesting to note that, from a reading of the text, God Himself recognizes the difference between an earthly day and an earthly thousand years. It also is interesting to note that Peter did not say that a day is a thousand years or a thousand years is a day, but that a day is “as” a thousand years and a thousand years is “as” a day. God always has recognized the difference between an earthly day, month, and year. The passage in 2 Peter 3:8 proves that He is able to communicate the difference to human beings. What did He say the time periods in Genesis 1 were? Days!

---

Copyright © 2001 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the “Bible Bullets” section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may not be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites (although links to articles on the Apologetics Press Web site are permitted).

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

Are Christ and Christianity Unoriginal? 12 min Video

https://apologeticspress.org/video/are-christ-and-christianity-unoriginal/ 

Please click on the link above and follow the path provided.

Accept All of God’s Word Video 4 min

https://apologeticspress.org/video/accept-all-of-gods-word/ 

Please click on the link above and follow the path provided.

 

Jesus Gives "Church" Meaning

Eric Lyons

Doctrinal MattersChurch Organization

The Greek word ekklesia, translated as “church” in most English Bibles, simply means “assembly.” In Matthew 16:18, Jesus said, “I will build my church (ekklesia).” Hence, we could read this verse, “I (Jesus) will build my assembly.” Paul wrote, “The churches of Christ salute you” (Romans 16:16). Again, this world translated “churches” could be translated “assemblies.”

Interestingly, the same term used in the two verses above (ekklesia) also is used at times in reference to secular assemblies. For example, in Acts 19:32 the term ekklesia is used to speak of the mob at Ephesus. The text reads: “Some therefore cried one thing, and some another: for the assembly (ekklesia) was confused.”

One might ask, “How do I know if the text is speaking about a secular assembly or the church?” Answer: The modifying words in the context of a particular passage are what make it possible to distinguish the kind of assembly to which the Bible writers were referring. We know that the assemblies Paul mentioned in Romans 16:16 are churches because ekklesia is modified by the phrase “of Christ.” Likewise, in Acts 20:28, we know the assembly mentioned is the church because it is modified by the phrase, “of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood” (emp. added). The word “assembly” is set apart from secular assemblies in these passages because the context points to a group of people owned by Christ.

The religious world needs to understand that Jesus is the one who gives ekklesia meaning. When mere human names and terms are placed alongside “church,” then the name no longer possesses the meaning that God intended for it to have. Christians should wear the name of Christ (and Christ only) because He purchased the church (Acts 20:28) and said it was His (Matthew 16:18).

Without the work of Jesus, nothing would separate us from man-made assemblies. He gave ekklesia a new meaning in the first century, and continues to give it meaning today when we wear His name.

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.