Biblical criteria for miracles?

Must the Bible define what constitutes a true miracle?

In the sense that Scripture provides the foundation for the Theology of the Church, yes.

But in a legal-type sense, no.

What do I mean by legal sense? This is where the bible is treated like one might treat the US code of law. If I wanted to know how I am supposed to drive, I would look up US and/or state law, and find directives probably along the lines of “the driver of the vehicle shall obey posted speed limits” or some such. As well, if I wanted to know what the meaning of the word “vehicle was” according to the law, I would find a definition spelled out.

However, except for the Torah proper specifically Leviticus and Deuteronomy there is no law code recorded. God does not in scripture give a definition of a miracle. And it is an assumption that only the specific ways that scripture record miracles are the ways that a miracle will always happen.  

This of course deals with issues of the “regulative principle” and systems that use scripture as a law book of sorts to provide a comprehensive system for order in the Church and theology. 

Instead scripture records events and contains occasional letters. Just because they are inspired, doesn’t imply they are to be used in a “regulative” manner in the same way we in the US use the constitution. 

When it comes to miracles, it is important what scripture says about miracles and the supernatural and the nature of God. Not so that the Church will only believe in miracles that fit the exact manner described, but so that in determining a modern day miracle or supernatural occurrence the Church has a solid foundation to analyze it from. 

Just because all miracles in scripture have trait X doesn’t imply that all miracles God ever does have trait X and must have trait X to be considered from God. The results of the miracle (people moved to love a life of grater faith, hope and love) is more important then criteria which scripture never gives us anyway. 

For instance, in the martyrdom of Polycarp there are several supernatural visions that the Christians claim occurred at his death. The text reads as if none of these were seen by the non-Christians present. Yet, just because when miracles in scripture always seem to be public, doesn’t mean when God does miracles he only makes them public. 

This is because miracles don’t exist in the bible, they exist in reality. (see HERE for more argument behind this concept) The bible records miraculous event at certain times, but there is not reason to think it records all of them that God has ever done or that the descriptions are intended to give us a complete picture of what all supernatural events much look like. 

True miracles will first of all be miraculous. When it comes to healings the Catholics have seven criteria developed by Cardinal Prospero Lambertini (latter Pope Benedict XIV):

1.“ Primum est, ut morbus sit gravis, et vel impossibilis, vel curatu difficilis ” – Firstly, the disease should be serious, incurable or difficult to treat. 

2.“ Secundum, ut morbus, qui depellitur, non sit in ultima parte status, ita ut non multo post declinare debeat ” – Secondly, the eradicated disease should not be in its final stage or at a stage whereby it may involve spontaneous recovery. 

3.“ Tertium, ut nulla fuerint adhibita medicamenta, vel, si fuerint adhibita, certum sit, ea non profuisse ” – Thirdly, no drug should have been administered or, in the event that it has been administered, the absence of any effects should have been ascertained. 

4.“ Quartum, ut sanatio sit subita, et momentanea ” – Fourthly, the recovery has to take place suddenly and instantly. 

5.“ Quintum, ut sanatio sit perfecta, non manca, aut concisa ”– Fifthly, the recovery has to be perfect, and not defective or partial. 6.“ Sextum, ut nulla notatu digna evacuatio, seu crisis praecedat temporibus debitis, et cum causa; si enim ita accidat, tunc vero prodigiosa sanatio dicenda non erit, sed vel ex toto, vel ex parte naturalis ” Sixthly, it is necessary that any noteworthy excretion or crisis has taken place at the proper time, as a reasonable result of an ascertained cause, prior to the recovery; under these circumstances the recovery cannot be deemed prodigious, but totally or partially natural. 

7.“ Ultimum, ut sublatus morbus non redeat ” – Lastly, it is necessary for the eradicated disease not to reappear. 

(From De Servorum Beatificatione et Beatorum Canonizatione. liber IV, Cap. VIII, no. 2)

Along with this a miracle from God must glorify God and encourage true faith and good works. These really just follow the rules that one of the few law books in scripture actually gives us in Deut 18:18-22: 

“But any prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, or who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded the prophet to speak-- that prophet shall die." You may say to yourself, "How can we recognize a word that the LORD has not spoken?"  If a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD but the thing does not take place or prove true, it is a word that the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; do not be frightened by it.”

The legal usage of scripture isn’t even used in the legal books. Of course, I could write a thesis on the problems with the regulative principle, but that would be a bit much for this blog. 

These are theological criteria that allow God to show us the supernatural in ways we haven’t seen before yet also keep us out of following everything that claims to be supernatural. Christians shouldn’t be functional Deists (the supernatural only happened back then) or fall into trusting everything (like former Bishop Pike)

Baptismal Exorcism in the Apsotolic Fathers: Barnabas

One of the few places in the corpus of the Fathers that mentions exorcism by concept is in the letter attributed to Barnabas. In the context of answering the question of if there is still a Temple of God (Barn. 16.6), Barnabas describes what a person looked like before salvation in relation to demons (Barn. 16.7-10). The analogy he builds is the person is a temple, which was once full of demons (Barn. 16:7) but after receiving forgiveness and being born anew the person is then dwelt by God. This is salvific exorcism, where the person is purified of the demonic by Christ as part of salvation, and as part of preparation for instead being indwelt by God, thus making the person truly a temple of God. 

Barnabas does not actually say that he has baptism in mind, but based on his sotieriology, baptism is most likely in view. Barnabas’ view of the Old Testament is one of fulfillment, where everything in it, even down circumcision (Barn. 9) and the kosher laws, (Barn. 10) was intended to point to Christ and the New Covenant. In fact, for Barnabas these are the only acceptable interpretations, (Armitage, “Barnabas, Hermas and the Didache” 1926, 10) to take the Old Testament literally was to be deceived by the “evil angel” (Barn. 9.4). If the entire New Covenant was foreshadowed, then he asks “was the water and the cross” (Barn. 11.1) foreshadowed?” This leads to his characteristic allegorical interpretation in defense that the Old Testament testifies to the death of the Messiah and to Baptism. 

First he defends Baptism, saying that Israel would never accept the “baptism that brings forgiveness of sins”. (Barn. 11.1) Baptism in Barnabas is connected with the cross event, brings forgiveness of sins, converts the sinner and brings hope. After quoting several prophets he claims they linked both baptism and the cross together. (Barn. 11.8) Those who are rewarded, the righteous as pointed out in 11.7, are those who in 11.8 “having set their hope on the cross, descend into the water” which brings “conversion and hope to many”. Those who go down into the water “laden with sins and dirt” (Barn. 11.11) obtain both “fruit” in their hearts and hope in Jesus.

Second he comments on how the Old Testament prophets foreshadowed the cross. (Barn. 12) The main focus of his argument comes from Moses and especially the bronze serpent, which was a symbol of the cross. (Barn. 12.2) This is the sign that would bring life (Barn. 12.5) and salvation. (Barn. 12.7) The cross does more then this, as it also brings victory over Satan. Taking the allegory of the serpents in the wilderness to the next level, Barnabas argues that the reason God sent serpents to punish Israel when it was falling was because the “fall happened though the serpent, with the help of eve”. The bronze serpent brought victory over the power of the serpents in the desert the same way that the cross would bring victory over the Satan who deceived Eve. Due to the connections between the cross and Baptism, Barnabas sees the benefits as parallel, particularly that Baptism is the means by which a person receives the benefits of the cross. (Barn. 11.8) This demonstrates that Baptism brought about the victory over Satan to the individual.

Going back to chapter sixteen, the purification of the demonic element is a result of the salvation even of the water and the cross, which happens at Baptism. Barnabas assumes his previous theological assertions when speaking of inner cleansing. There are two sections, the first is the state of the person before salvation, (Barn. 16.7) and the second describes the process of salvation. (Barn. 16.8-10) Before salvation a person is ruled by demons. Their heart, or inner person, was “corrupt and weak”. After the person receives forgiveness of sins they are made new and “God truly dwells” in their “dwelling place”, (Barn. 16.8) which is the heart mentioned earlier. Either a person is indwelt by demons or by God, and the difference is made in being purified though forgiveness and new creation. These are the result of the water and the cross, which are inherently connected for Barnabas. 

Barnabas’ exorcistic views of Baptism in chapter sixteen are very explicit (Kelly, “Devil at Baptism” 2004, 52) on the grounds of his theology of Baptism itself found in 11-12. It would go beyond the evidence to say there was a separate exorcism rite involved in baptism according to Barnabas, although there may have been, but it is certain that he saw baptism itself as exorcistic. This connection between baptism and exorcism is missed by Twelftree when he argues that it is not exorcism but “coming to faith in conversion” (Twelftree, “In the Name of Jesus” 2007, 225) that removes the demonic and that Barnabas’ discussion on baptism fails to mention exorcism. This is true, but Barnabas does connect baptism to the cross, which brings victory over Satan and then latter does connect the same results of baptism to the removal of demons. It is not just faith in the sense Twelftree sees it, but the faith under the rite of baptism that removes the demonic.  Kelly (p52) makes the same mistake by assuming that exorcism must be mentioned at the same point where baptism is for Barnabas to have an exorcistic baptismal theology. The connection is instead made though the forgiveness of sins, which Barnabas sees as being a result of both the Cross and Baptism, (Porter and Cross, “Dimensions of Baptism” 2002, 211) though which is also the cleansing of the inner soul from demonic influence. (Ibid. 221) It is at the moment of the ritual initiation that the person, like the Israelites did with the serpent, looks at the cross and gains victory over the serpent.