Gifts of the Holy Spirit
First, some simple truth
Each Christian somehow finds that whatever he thinks most important is the evidence of the Holy Spirit in the Christian life. The Bible finds that when the Holy Spirit comes with power to His people, His power is plainly evident to those outside.
Specifically, they will know Jesus came from God if the power of God has made us one as Jesus prayed (John 17:20-21). They will know we are actually His disciples if we love one another (John 13:34-35). To the extent that this is happening, the Spirit of God is resting upon us. Otherwise, is there really any fruit, or is it all just shiny leaves?
As we justify ourselves by emphasizing whatever we're doing right, we deny or belittle other important things. Speaking in tongues, prophecy, healings, and miracles often suffer this abuse, as some major in them while others explain them away.
Before going on to these specific issues, I want to review some simple truths. If we understand them, we will no longer quarrel about and misuse spiritual gifts.
Paul wrote, "Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware" (1 Cor. 12:1). Why not?
Spiritual gifts are the power of God to place us where we belong, and to a great extent, they determine where that is (1 Cor. 12). Apart from the power of God's spirit to place us where we belong, we will for certain try other ways to get there. None of these ways ever work, and in fact they always result in being "led astray to dumb idols" (1 Cor. 12:2-3).
To the degree that we succeed in getting our act together this way, God is excluded, and everything we do stinks of death. Our service to men becomes careerism and empire building, and we call it ministry (Ezek. 34). Meaning to serve God we entertain ourselves, and we call it worship (Ex. 32:1-6, Isa. 1:10-14). Instead of faithfully declaring God's word to the world, we market God's word with worldly cunning, tickling their ears, and we call it evangelism (2 Tim. 4:1-5). Having founded a social club on our earthly principles, we call it the church of God.
Such earthly principles are weak, since they have no power to help us do what they demand. They are beggarly, since they always press us for more effort, more zeal, more money, and more time - all so we can make them look right and justify our service to them (Gal. 4:8-9, Col. 2:20-23).
God makes us all different, so that as we stray from His truth, we wander to conflicting principles - different gods. In this way God justly divides us from one another as we divide ourselves from Him (Gen. 11:1-9). Fulfilling the testimony, "New gods were chosen, then war was in the gates" (Judges 5:8), this idolatry leads inevitably to strife as we cloak our distaste for differences with weighty doctrinal formulations, just as men of the world do. [1]
Not understanding how the Spirit of God puts His body together, we confuse variety with error and disunity, although our differences are how God promotes unity and gives a complete witness to the whole world (1 Cor. 12:14-30). Is it not by being different in their eating and drinking that Jesus and John the Baptist left no pretext to those who rejected them both (Luke 7:31-35)? God has deliberately made each of us incomplete, not because of sin, but to make us need one another (1 Cor. 12:21-22).
Those we find most powerless and unproductive really are the most essential, because God has compassion on His servants and takes action when He sees that their strength is gone (Deut. 32:36). The power of God does not come through the excellence and spiritual worthiness of the one who ministers, but through the need of those needing ministry. God's power in the church is based on the helpless, because it is when we are without strength that God is moved to act (Rom. 5:6-8, Ex. 2:23-25, 2 Kings 14:23-27, Acts 3:12).
Furthermore, God is so concerned with real unity in the body, based on humility and truth, that He arranges to honor those we consider dishonorable, often even when their theology is wrong (1 Cor. 12:23-25, Luke 10:30-36).
Although Jesus rejected the errors of Samaritan theology (John 4:19-22), he did want His hearers to follow the good example of the Samaritan whom they despised, rather than that of the Levite and the priest who could recite the proper creed but didn't know how to live.
In the same way, God reconciles us to others by serving us through those we disdain rather than those we approve. A big reason we are not healed is that we refuse to let God work this way.
If you excel in some respect, then I may think you're better than I am. It's true, and so it's right for me to think so (Phil. 2:3). But if I don't like that, my pride will reach for a way to show that your gift is not real. When I do that, I take the road to deception, the "crooked way" of pride causing me to be led away with evildoers (Ps. 125:5).
Take away the hurt pride, the envy, the resentment against being thought a second class Christian, the tawdry comfort of feeling superior - which all go with not understanding how and why God distributes manifestations of His Spirit - and what is left to quarrel about?
Speaking in tongues
Most times in Acts, speaking in unknown languages accompanied the baptism in the Holy Spirit, and was taken as conclusive evidence of the baptism on at least one occasion (Acts 10:44-47). But they were clearly not trying to speak in unknown languages, so when people are seeking to speak in tongues as a sign of being baptized in the Spirit, they are no longer following the Biblical pattern. Speaking in tongues in that case is much less convincing, which is undoubtedly one reason others are often skeptical.
Paul wrote that if one speaks in a tongue, "he speaks not to men but to God, for no one understands" (1 Cor. 14:2). God's only provision for understanding an unknown language inspired by His Spirit is the gift of interpretation, so efforts to prove or disprove the validity of tongues by recording and analyzing them are presumptuous and futile. Such attempts call to mind the sons of the prophets who insisted on searching for Elijah when he had been taken up to heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kings 2:15-18).
If the word says, "No one understands," then no one understands, not even a linguist, unless it pleases God of His own will to cause a hearer to understand a particular utterance. The wise men of Babylon were unable to interpret, or even read, the words on the wall, even though they were the empire's experts in all things, including the languages of other peoples (Dan. 5:9). If modern data encryption methods turn data into total garbage without the encryption key, it's no surprise if genuine tongues should sound like total gibberish apart from interpretation given by the Holy Spirit. The Bible clearly states that the encryption key for an unknown language is the gift of interpretation, so no other way can be expected to work.
Now someone will say, "What about Pentecost? They spoke known languages then, didn't they?" At first glance, it seems obvious that they did, but a careful look at the text shows that that may not be so.
If we listen to a large group of people talking together some distance away, it is nearly impossible to distinguish their words even if they all speak our own language. How then could the words of 120 people all speaking at once in different languages in a second story room be clearly distinguishable to a crowd in the street below?
This explains the two responses in the crowd. Those who heard excited conversation without being able to distinguish the words concluded that the 120 were drunk. Those who heard God's praises in their own languages were astonished that they were hearing the praises of God distinctly and, more so, that each was hearing in his own language.
If the words had been distinct as spoken, would anyone have thought them drunk, since the languages of everyone present were being clearly heard? Drunken men seldom speak words like these! What if this understanding was a miracle of hearing, not of speaking, and that only some in the crowd were made able to hear?
This happened on several other occasions in Scripture. When God spoke the Ten Commandments at Sinai, the people heard only thunder, while Moses heard them distinctly spoken. When the Father spoke to Jesus, those standing with Him heard thunder, but Jesus distinguished the words (John 12:28-29). When Jesus spoke to Paul on the road to Damascus, those with Paul could not distinguish the words spoken, although they heard the sound (Acts 9:7, 22:9).
If no one understands when someone speaks in an unknown tongue, then how can we know whether it's good or bad? Well, if that's a problem today, then was it not a problem when Paul was speaking in tongues more than everyone in Corinth was? But we learn from Job (not to speak of daily life!) that even speaking in a known language is no assurance that we can speak right. Job's friends spoke accurately enough to be quoted with approval by Paul (1 Cor. 3:19), but they were dead wrong because their words did not apply to the situation in which they were spoken (Job 42:7-8).
We never fully understand the situation in which we're speaking because the hearts of others are not laid bare to us. If we do not stumble in the words we speak with our understanding, neither will we stumble in the use of an unknown language. The proper test, as with anything else, is what fruit it brings forth.
But what good is it to speak in tongues? Paul thanked God that he spoke in tongues more than all the Corinthians, so it must be good for something (1 Cor. 14:18). We speak mysteries to God, and even to ourselves - it seems that the Spirit of God wants people to pray about things that they themselves are not prepared to understand at the time with their minds (1 Cor. 14:2, 28).
Evidently as a result of what we say, though we do not understand it, we are built up as we pray (1 Cor. 14:4). This is not as valuable as building up the whole assembly, but it is surely better than nothing, and eventually benefits the assembly, because when one member is glorified, the others are helped as well (1 Cor. 12:26).
Misguided criticisms
Some assert that it's a bad thing to speak mysteries to God in the spirit and to edify oneself, rather than the church (1 Cor. 14:2, 12:4). [2] One who reads the Bible by himself edifies himself only, while teaching the Bible publicly edifies the whole church, but do these critics find fault with personal Bible study?
In Psalm 16 David spoke to God about Messiah's deliverance from death and corruption, without knowing who he was talking about (1 Pet. 1:11). Was it useless in this case to speak mysteries to God without understanding them?
MacArthur, a leading critic of contemporary speaking in tongues, develops the notion that "tongue" in the singular, in 1 Cor. 14:2, 4, 13, and 14, refers to pagan gibberish associated with mystery religions. [3] On the next page, he asserts that 14:13 requires that such a tongue must be interpreted, but without explaining why one should pray to interpret what is supposedly pagan gibberish (1 Cor. 14:13)! [4]
If MacArthur's inventive conjectures about the influence of mystery religions had any basis in the text, wouldn't Paul have given much sterner warnings as he did elsewhere when he thought demons were involved (1 Cor. 10:14-22)? Instead, Paul speaks not of good and bad, but of good and better and how to employ good things well. Paul's main complaint about tongues is that the hearers get no benefit, unless the gift of interpretation is available, because they can't understand what is being said.
Hasn't MacArthur tortured the text as I’ve shown above because he came to it already knowing what he wants it to say? But if you're disposed to scoff at him, consider: if it can happen to MacArthur, it can happen to you or to me. Our lesson here is not one man's foolishness, because most of the time MacArthur proves to be a diligent and careful expositor. My point is what happens even to the wise when we use the Bible to prove ourselves right, thereby distorting it to our own destruction (2 Pet. 3:16). Doesn't it make more sense to try to learn how we're wrong so that we can change our minds and find new life?
Unsound defenses
Those of us who speak in tongues might hesitate to call ourselves experts on the subject, because we do our share to create needless offenses for others. If we were truly wise, would we do that? Two false doctrines, quite prevalent among us, deserve special mention.
First is the notion that tongues are unrelated to understanding or are intended by God to nullify our understanding in order to humble our pride. No one gives real support from the Bible for these ideas, because there is none. On the contrary, the Bible says to be transformed by the renewing of our minds (Rom. 12:1-2). If speaking in tongues truly edifies the speaker, the renewing of his mind must be involved - just as the minds of those in the church are certainly involved when one edifies them by prophesying (1 Cor. 14:2-4).
Someone will now remind me that if I pray in a tongue, my mind is unfruitful (1 Cor. 14:14). So it is, because the fruit of the mind is understandable words, and in this case there are none. But though the mind is not producing fruit, it should be receiving fertilizer - new understanding, especially of what to pray for.
Not long after the rioting in Los Angeles in 1992, on my lunchtime walk, I prayed in an unknown language. Almost immediately, my thoughts turned to the rioting, my heart was filled with grief, and tears ran down my face. To be sure, my mind was unfruitful, but it was not uninvolved. I gained new understanding and a softer heart.
Tongues given by the Spirit of God will always affect the understanding, because God transforms us by renewing our minds. Unless our minds are being renewed, we are not being transformed or built up.
Failing to understand this, we can easily settle for empty babbling which may have nothing to do with the Holy Spirit. Whether it makes us feel good or bad to do it means nothing in itself. God may make us feel good, but He may make us feel rotten, as He did to Daniel and Habakkuk (Dan. 7:15, 28, 8:27, Hab. 3:16).
That our own hearts or Satan can deceptively make us feel good should need no elaboration; at least in other people, this is obvious. What really counts is whether we are being transformed by the renewing of our minds, as revealed in new attitudes and behavior.
A second serious error is to justify speaking in tongues by means of Romans 8:26, which says that the Holy Spirit intercedes for us with groanings that cannot be uttered. But tongues can be uttered, just as it is written, "They all spoke with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance."
Also, the groanings of the Holy Spirit in this verse are parallel to our own groanings and those of the creation around us, which does not speak in tongues but sighs and groans without words (Rom. 8:22-26). To be sure, tongues do enable us to intercede beyond our understanding, but this passage is not talking about that. It has nothing to do with speaking in tongues, especially since it applies to all believers, including those who don't speak in tongues. We have twisted it out of shape to make it say what we want. Have we gotten away with this?
If we believe tongues to be the right expression of such groanings, we will gush empty words at times when we need to be silent before God (Hab. 2:20, Eccl. 5:1-2, Matt. 6:7). What ought to be a manifestation of the Spirit becomes a distraction from the silence which is called for, and we stifle the wordless groaning of the Holy Spirit by our many words. See how this false doctrine leads directly to behavior that harms us and leads others astray! When we twist the word of God to suit ourselves, do we ever get away with it?
Prophecy
Prophecy is speaking on God's behalf what He has to say. Prophecy discloses the secrets of men's hearts so they may recognize God's presence and worship Him (1 Cor. 14:24-25). The one prophesying does not fully understand what he is saying, because the words are not ultimately his own, and often are not even intended for him (1 Pet. 1:10-12).
Real prophecy is certainly the manifestation of the Spirit most to be wanted, because one who prophesies makes known God's mind to people, and ultimately that's the cure for everything that ails us. One might expect that such a great gift would be limited to unusually spiritual people, but Paul writes that we may all prophesy (1 Cor. 14:31). Several instances in Scripture show that anyone, including unbelievers, may prophesy under God's direction - notably Pharaoh Neco (2 Chron. 35:20-22), Caiaphas as he plotted to kill Jesus (John 11:49-51), and even the priests and diviners of the Philistines (1 Sam. 6:1-9). This last is especially sobering: diviners commonly divine by a spirit of divination, an evil spirit (Phil. 16:16-21), and yet on this occasion God Himself spoke through them to the Philistines to show them mercy. If then we prophesy, do we have anything to brag about?
We need to grasp this, because the most serious hindrance to this gift is our inclination to get puffed up about it, which leads to the condemnation of the devil (1 Tim. 3:6). To avoid that, God will keep even good things away from us.
For this reason, when Paul says, "Desire earnestly to prophesy," this presupposes Zephaniah's command: "Seek humility" (Zeph. 2:3). Indeed Zephaniah elsewhere explicitly states the connection between humility and speaking the truth without deceit, which is what true prophecy is all about (Zeph. 3:12-13). Whenever I speak a word from God, humility comes easier when I recall that people like Caiaphas the murderer of Jesus have done so before me.
One evidence that we want to prophesy because we enjoy being puffed up is how much we emphasize prophecy rather than less flashy things which we need even more desperately. Jesus said, "I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes" (Matt. 23:34). The wise man and the scribe are just as essential as the prophet, and each has a solid place in the Scriptures. Why then is the prophet the one we get excited about? As foolish and ignorant as we are, couldn't we use the ministry of the wise and the scribe as Jesus said?
We need to distinguish between the prophet and one who prophesies. Anyone can prophesy, but not everyone is a prophet. Paul says, "Do not despise prophetic utterances. But examine everything; hold fast to that which is good" (1 Thess. 5:20-21).
This implies that prophetic utterances may be mingled with error, having to be sifted out of the surrounding clutter - the danger exists of throwing away good stuff because of the trash around it. This word examine suggests a close inspection and testing, as when God examines our hearts (1 Thess. 2:4).
The one who prophesies falsely but is not a prophet does not deserve condemnation, but when his words are examined and found wanting, this correction should lead to better things.
Unfortunately, we too seldom love the truth or one another enough to do this examining and correcting, although God clearly commands it, and so we largely forfeit the opportunity to grow up. Indeed, those who have still not learned to stop prophesying falsely are actually appointed in some places to teach how to enter the prophetic ministry! Talk about the blind leading the blind, so that both fall into the ditch!
One who occupies the office of prophet has been given much more, and much more is expected of him. A false prophet is deeply depraved; he is not merely ignorant or immature. Although the false prophet speaks falsehood, that is not generally his intention. He wants to speak truth, but in order to serve his ruling passion, which is to lead people astray after himself - he likes having disciples (Acts 20:29-30, 3 John 9-10, Acts 8:9-24, 13:6-8). His words are false because God is giving him up to delusion to reveal the lie at the heart of his being.
For this reason, a common mark of the false prophet is adultery and other sexual immorality. Since he wants to seduce the Lamb's wife, God reveals his wickedness by giving him over to his lust in a form which anyone can see and understand, so that he seduces the wives of other men as well (Jer. 29:21-23, 2 Pet. 2:1, 14).
The false prophetess shows us this from another perspective; she seduces the Lord's servants to go after her, as did the Midianites at Baal-peor (Num. 25). To abstain from sexual immorality, start by no longer enticing the disciples to follow you, trying to seduce the Lamb's wife (Acts 8:9-10, 3 John 9-11, Rev. 2:20-24). If you persist, expect God to give you up to deception, so that you believe and speak lies in His name and descend to even worse corruption.
If these things do not encourage you to pursue humility and depart from every form of selfish ambition, what else can be said?
Gifts of Healings
The Bible speaks nowhere, as far as I know, of a singular "gift of healing" which enables one to heal at will. Paul mentions "gifts of healings" when he discusses spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12:9). This seemingly trivial issue of number can be crucial, as when Paul argues that Abraham's seed is Christ because it is one seed, not many seeds (Gal. 3:16).
Gifts of healings are a manifestation of the spirit - the real thing forces us to acknowledge that God himself did it. Paul, however, does distinguish these from miracles. An example of a gift of healing is the cure of Hezekiah (Isa. 38:1-8, 21-22). He was healed through a standard medical procedure, not a miracle, but there was no doubt that the power of God made it work.
Since "healings" is plural, various kinds of healings are evidently in mind, not only directly through prayer, but also worked out in deeds under God's direction. Often in Scripture, healing comes by obeying an instruction from God.
In many ways we harm ourselves by eluding pain without the help and guidance of God. Being really healed means learning to endure suffering in God's power in order to be healed, in place of our old way of getting hurt by avoiding pain without God. Healing in such cases and many others may well need to be progressive (Isa. 58:8-11), just like the restoration of God's people (Ezek. 34:11-16, 37:1-14).
Although the actual healing may not be miraculous, it will be manifest that the Holy Spirit brought it about, because a gift of healing is a manifestation of the Spirit. Although natural means may be used in a gift of healing, healings by natural means are not examples of this gift if it is not clear to any reasonable person that the Spirit of God directly brought it about, as we see in Hezekiah's case.
Miracles
Jesus indicates that miracles are an essential part of the good news of the kingdom of God (Matt. 10:7-8, Luke 10:9), just as doing good to my wife is an essential part of telling her that I love her. John wrote that the essential characteristic of God's love is that He loves in deed and in truth, not just in word and in tongue (1 John 3:16-18). To proclaim the kingdom of God while withholding the power of God is absurd on its face. If we come to people with nothing but mere words, it's quite reasonable for them to conclude that the kingdom of God is not with us, no matter what we say (1 Cor. 4:20).
The power of God, it is true, encompasses far more than works of power. John the Baptist performed no sign, but by the power of God everything he said about Jesus was true (John 10:41). In the power of God, Jesus refused to make stones into bread or come down from the cross, Job endured, and others suffered all kinds of trials without any kind of miraculous deliverance. It is all the same power, received by the same faith, which works in those who realize that they need more than they have in order to serve the Lord and others (Matt. 5:6, Luke 11:5-13).
No one denies that we still need the power of God to accurately proclaim the truth. All, except a few of the "name it and claim it" persuasion, agree that patient endurance of sufferings is an essential component of the gospel, even though we very seldom see it done. (Still, it's more often done than we see.) In fact, an essential part of preaching the message is to suffer for it (2 Cor. 4:7-11).
In just the same way, miracles are an essential component of the good news that ours is a God who acts, rather than one who sits there while his disciples talk about him and carry his burdens (Ps. 115:4-8, Isa. 46:1-7). And miracles are an essential aspect of actually preaching the message of the kingdom (Acts 4:29-31, 13:9-13).
Nevertheless, men advance all kinds of arguments against the validity of miracles today. We can't avoid suspecting that they are seeking to justify themselves, like the lawyer who asked Jesus, "Who is my neighbor?" Let's examine a few of these ideas and see if anything is there.
Reasoning from silence
Strictly speaking, this is a method of interpretation, not a doctrine, but it's hardly possible to put a false doctrine together without it, so it deserves to be considered first. Reasoning from silence works like this. Susie comes home from school and shouts, "Can I watch TV?" When she gets no answer, she fills in the desired word, "Yes," and flicks on the tube. Tommy arrives, and seeing mom busy in the kitchen asks, "Do I have to do my homework now?" Strangely enough, if no answer is forthcoming, the silence simply reverberates with ""No, why don't you play some Nintendo?"
Concerning the 3,000 who believed Peter on the day of Pentecost, John Stott writes, "The 3,000 do not seem to have experienced the same miraculous phenomena (the rushing mighty wind, the tongues of flame, or the speech in foreign languages). At least nothing is said about these things." [5] Because he sees nothing described there, Stott is pleased to presume that nothing happened, and he draws important conclusions from what he does not see.
But other places in the text, notably the incident in Samaria, suggest that if nothing outward had happened to the 3,000, the apostles would have said that the Holy Spirit had not fallen on them yet. Stott also presumes that the 3,000 received the Holy Spirit as soon as they believed, but Peter plainly stated that they would receive the Holy Spirit after they were baptized (Acts 2:38), as in Acts 19. Those who reason from silence go astray by taking silence as a license to believe whatever they want, "walking in the light of their own fire” (Isa. 50:11), instead of trusting God in the darkness for real light from Him (Isa. 50:10).
Big people like to argue from silence for just the same reason little kids do - to license themselves to think and do as they please and to construe the words of their elders to their own carnal advantage. It is pure presumption.
They are forgetting that to take such liberties with God's word forfeits the real liberty that comes from truly abiding in it (John 8:31-32). Arguing from silence is both juvenile and dishonest, certainly one of the things Paul had in mind when he wrote, "When I became a man, I did away with childish things" (1 Cor. 13:11).
Why were Bible miracles recorded?
John 20:30-31 says, "Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name." John clearly states that he did not record everything that happened, but only what would instruct his readers and cause them to believe in Jesus. John's statement is often cited to prove that Jesus performed His miracles to make people believe in Him, but John is only telling us why he recorded these signs, not why Jesus did them.
This is no small distinction. If the newspaper describes how a man pulled a child out of a frozen pond, the paper is publishing the story in order to praise the deed and the man who did it. But did the man necessarily do it in order to see his name in the paper? Isn't it more likely that he was trying to save the child's life? In the same way, why Jesus did a miracle and why John described it are two different questions.
John explicitly states that he recorded only a tiny fraction of the things Jesus did, a good proportion of which were miracles (John 21:24-25). Did he make this editorial decision himself contrary to the whole tradition of Scripture before him? Or did he follow that tradition?
Paul says that the things written were recorded for our instruction (1 Cor. 10:11). God has done a lot of things by the hands of his people since the world began, but the Bible is a pretty small book. What John said of his own work is certainly true of the rest of the Bible as well - it records a miracle only when to do so serves to instruct us.
Driving out evil spirits, for instance, is scarcely mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures, but took place quite routinely. Jesus testified that even the sons of the Pharisees did so as a matter of course, saying to them, "If I by Beelzebub cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out" (Matt. 12:27)?
Someone may now wonder what Samson's miracles were intended to teach. Samson, having miraculously killed many Philistines, killed more in his death, as his enemies mocked him, than he had in his life. Afterward, the Philistines yielded up his body to his family, who buried it honorably in a tomb.
All this certainly meant something to Jesus as his enemies mocked him on the cross, where he accomplished more than he had in all his life. It instructed his disciples later, when Pilate yielded up his body to them so they could bury it in Joseph's own tomb (Judges 16:25-31, Matt. 27:33-44, 57-61). It is quite evident that Samson's miracles serve to instruct us in the manner and significance of Messiah's death.
Why were Bible miracles done?
The Bible often tells us what moved Jesus to perform a miracle. Most often, Jesus did so because he loved his neighbor as himself and felt compassion for him, as did the Samaritan (Luke 10:33, 7:13, Mark 1:41, Matt. 20:34). Jesus himself stated it as follows (Luke 4:18-19, Isa. 61:1-2):
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
Because he anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives,
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set free those who are downtrodden,
To proclaim the favorable year of the Lord.
And why did his Father send him to do these things? Is it not the same reason He sent Moses, because He himself suffers in the afflictions of His people (Ex. 2:25, Judges 10:16)?
When has God worked miracles?
With no warrant at all from the Scriptures, many argue from silence that the miracles recorded are essentially all there were - that if nothing is said, then nothing happened.
On this basis, it is commonly taught that miracles are largely limited to three short periods of time: the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan, the ministries of Elijah and Elisha, and the time of Jesus and his apostles. [6] The implication is that miracles are almost entirely absent the rest of the time.
There is no question that God works more powerfully at some times than others, just as a farmer works harder in harvest and seedtime than during the winter.
But there are other notable periods in which miracles are recorded: the exploits of David and his mighty men (2 Sam. 23); the deliverances of Jehoshaphat, Asa, and even the evildoer Abijah the son of Rehoboam; and the very notable events of Hezekiah's time, including the healing of the people at the Passover celebration when Hezekiah prayed for them (2 Chron. 30:17-20). In general, whenever God's people were in desperate straits and prayed, God frequently answered with miraculous acts.
Secondly, though not describing any miracles, the letters in the New Testament still call them normative. To encourage us to pray and expect results, James cites the example of Elijah, claiming that it applies to us because Elijah was of the same nature as we are (James 5:13-18). Why, if miracles were to stop, did James raise such false hopes?
Paul rests his teaching against legalism on the way God works miracles among us (Gal. 3:5). But if miracles were supposed to end in a few years, was his teaching on legalism supposed to go away too, or was Paul unaware that miracles would shortly stop, thereby depriving his teaching of crucial support?
In fact, legalism is commonplace in assemblies which do not acknowledge the need for miracles. Doesn't this indicate that when the basis for Paul's teaching is absent, Paul's teaching is deprived of its force?
Whenever God is not performing miracles, the Scriptures always treat it as an abnormality, a reproach. In the days of Gideon, God did no miracles for the people because he was giving them into the hands of Midian, so that Gideon asked the angel, "Where are His miracles" (Judges 6:13)? In Egypt the 400 years of captivity were not characterized by miracles, but miracles came after the people began to sigh and cry out to God in their bondage.
To be sure, miracles have greatly dwindled in the churches since the apostles. So has the purity of our doctrine, as all confess (each perhaps making an exception for himself and those who agree with him!). So has our love for one another - what a contrast even between the church described in Acts and what we see in the later letters of Paul!
If anyone wants to make a case against miracles on the basis of church history, let him say also on the same basis that we no longer need genuine love, which the world will tell you it has not seen in a long time (John 13:35), or that we no longer need to teach the pure truth with one voice, which also has not happened for a very long time.
Why are miracles in short supply?
Men do search long and hard to prove that the way things are is the way they should be. Radical repentance is thereby made unnecessary, except for other people. But the Scriptures are pretty clear about it - Jesus can't do many miracles among us because of our unbelief, although not necessarily the unbelief of the one in need (Mark 6:5-6, Matt. 17:19-21). But can I charge the whole church with unbelief? Aren't there many people who believe God is going to heal them?
Indeed there are. Zedekiah, in his rebellion, vainly believed that God would miraculously deliver him from the Babylonians (Jer. 21:1-2). But unbelief in miracles is not the problem - unbelief in Jesus is. People don't need to believe God is going to do a miracle for them; lots of people in the Bible got a miracle they weren't expecting. People need to believe who God is and what God says - not just about miracles, but everything.
The context of the Sermon on the Mount is that a great crowd was following Jesus because of his miracles (Matt. 4:23-25). His disciples came to him, those who wanted to be like him and do the things he was doing (Matt. 10:24-25). How could they have authority with God as he did? So he sat down and proceeded to tell them (Matt. 5-7).
Do we believe his words? Are we doing them (Matt. 7:24-27)? If not, why look further for why we don't have much authority with God (Matt. 8:9)? When will we understand that precisely the same power makes cripples walk and makes us do what Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount? If we don't seek the power to walk in his steps, should we expect the power to make cripples walk?
Why would God want to work miracles through people anyway?
Hanani the seer gave the short answer as follows: "The eyes of the Lord move to and fro throughout the earth to strongly support those whose heart is completely His" (2 Chron. 16:9). Is it not clear that He really wants to strongly support a particular class of people, but that opportunities are few?
A more fundamental reason to work through people is that it is God's nature to delegate His authority. His glory is to do it through others, not just to do it Himself. So having separated the light from the darkness in the beginning, He then entrusted the division of day and night to the sun, moon, and stars.
God reveals His commitment to delegation everywhere, to the point where he often lets His deputies seriously mess up the work. Delegation is crucial to God's purpose, to the way His kingdom runs. The centurion summed it up, "I too am a man under authority" - and so he had authority. The effect of being under God's authority is to be granted God's authority. That's how the world is to really know the reality of God's authority, just as the centurion came to recognize it in Jesus.
Do miracles bring people to faith?
Some deny that miracles result in faith, since it is written that "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ."
So it does, but even a fool speaks through his actions, and even a child is known by what he does. "Actions speak louder than words." If the whole world knows that "actions speak" and are therefore a word themselves, are not the deeds of God an expression of His word? Why shouldn’t this word of the deed bring people to faith - just as it is written, "The kindness of God leads you to repentance" (Rom. 2:4).
To show that miracles do not engender faith, someone will object that Elijah's encounter on Mount Carmel did little to bring Israel to repentance - although Elijah himself said that it had (1 Kings 18:37). Since Baal continued to be worshiped, and Israel largely did not turn to God, what was Elijah talking about?
Before this encounter, Jezebel slaughtered the prophets at will, and none dared to show himself (1 Kings 18:4). God's only witness in the land was the drought.
Afterwards, although Elijah had run away, persecution became impossible. The prophets ministered openly, even reproving the king, and Ahab and his son Jehoram sought their counsel and received it (1 Kings 20:13-43, 2 Kings 3:10-20, 6:8-23, 8:1-6). Moreover, the new climate allowed the schools of the prophets to flourish, and one of their number was sent to Jehu to put an end to Jezebel, the house of Ahab, and Baal (2 Kings 2:1-18, 9:1-10:28). Were these results insignificant?
When Jesus was crucified and rose again, Israel for the most part did not repent. The Herods remained in power and persecuted the church. The chief priests and the scribes were unmoved by the resurrection and paid those who witnessed it to shut up (Matt. 28:11-15). If the continued hardness of Israel showed that Elijah's great miracle had no effect, then the resurrection of Jesus was no great success either. But if both accomplished everything that God intended, was that not enough?
Miracles often fail to result in faith, to be sure. The prophets preached at least as much as they performed miracles, and that often didn't work either. So why not argue that we should quit speaking the word since people are so often not moved to faith by it?
On the contrary, a fisherman need not catch every fish in the sea to make it worth the effort. Because some do hear His word, God sends us to tell what we have come to know. Certain others understand when God's servants perform works of power (Acts 9:34-35, 9:40-42, Rom. 15:18-19).
In particular, Jesus said that Tyre and Sidon, and Sodom too, would have repented if his miracles had been done in those places. According to Jesus, miracles do bring about repentance and faith. They would have made the difference in those three cities (Matt. 12:21-24).
"Word Faith" teachers explain away the need for grace to endure weakness, poverty, or sickness, teaching that you can always order up a miracle to avoid these things. Other people who are not acquainted with miracles explain them away, emphasizing right doctrine and the power to endure problems that God doesn't take away.
Both are just explaining why they don't need the power of God in their short suits. Rationalizing away shortcomings, they ensure that they will stay crippled in these ways.
Moreover, we see that in fact the "Word Faith" teachers have a lot less miracle power than meets the eye, and those who deny the need for miracles are no better known than others for patiently enduring sufferings and teaching the pure word with power.
Cleverly explaining away your need for God's power in one place will
make you lose it even where you think you're strong. This is the
due penalty for rejecting God's correction. Jesus said, "From the
one who does not have, even what he thinks He has shall be taken away"
(Matt. 25:29), because if God finds fault with us for not having, it is
always because we have refused to receive.
Notes
1. For an example from mathematics, I recommend Morris Klein, Mathematics - The Loss of Certainty (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980). The divisions among mathematicians over questions like the importance and even the nature of logical proof resemble in a remarkable way the same kinds of divisions among Christians over, for instance, the need to subject our experiences to the judgment of Scripture. It becomes evident that behind our "issues," the problem is that we are conformed to the world not only in what we believe, but in how we think. The cure for our disputes is nothing less than the renewal of our minds, not just changed opinions (Rom. 12:1-2, 14:1, 1?Cor. 1:10-11, 3:1-3, 13:11).
2. MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos, 228. This argument, weak as it is, turns up amazingly often in anti-charismatic works.
3. Ibid., 226 (footnote 15).
4. Ibid., 227.
5. John Stott, Baptism and Fullness (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1976), 28.
6. MacArthur, 111-119, cites B. B. Warfield in support of this
standard dispensationalist doctrine.