Miracle

← Encyclopedia

A miracle is an event ascribed to divine power and understood to fall outside the ordinary course of nature — a healing that medicine cannot explain, a storm stilled, the dead raised. The word descends from the Latin miraculum, a thing to be wondered at, formed on mirari, to wonder, and the wonder is essential to it: a miracle is not merely unusual but pointed, taken to mean something about the will behind it. The astonishment is not a side effect of the event. It is half the event’s definition. A thing too small to be noticed, or too regular to arrest attention, cannot be a miracle however far it exceeds nature; and a thing that astonishes but signifies nothing is a prodigy, not a sign. The marvel and the meaning travel together, and a doctrine of miracle is at bottom an account of how the two are joined.

The language of the sign

The scriptures that shaped the Western idea rarely use a single word, and the absence is telling. The Hebrew Bible speaks of ‘ot, a sign, and mopheth, a wonder or portent, most often paired — the signs and wonders by which the Exodus narrative says Egypt was struck and Israel led out. The Greek of the Septuagint renders that pair as sēmeion and teras, and the Gospels carry the vocabulary forward, favoring sēmeion, a sign, and dynamis, an act of power, far more often than any term for a breach of natural law. The three Greek words divide the matter by aspect rather than by kind: teras names the effect on the beholder, the prodigy that stops the breath; dynamis names the force at work, the mighty deed; sēmeion names the purpose, the event as something to be read. They describe the same occurrence from three standpoints, not three classes of occurrence.

That vocabulary matters, because in those texts the marvel is secondary to what it points at. A miracle in this register is less a violation than a disclosure — a moment in which an order usually hidden becomes briefly legible. The healings and feedings of the Gospel of John are called signs precisely because they are arguments: each is staged to say something about the one who works it, and the narrative repeatedly faults the crowd for craving the wonder while missing the sign. The cure is genuine, but the cure is not the point. The point is the finger the cure extends toward its source. To strip the meaning from a biblical miracle and keep only the suspension of physics is to keep the husk and lose the wheat — which is, not by accident, close to the complaint those texts level at their own witnesses.

The medieval definition

The sharper definition, the one most debated since, came later. Medieval theologians worked to distinguish the genuine miracle, worked by God, from the merely wonderful or the demonic counterfeit — for if a prodigy could be produced by a fallen spirit or a clever cause, the bare wonder proved nothing, and the labor of definition was the labor of telling a divine sign from its imitations. This is where the concept turns analytic, and where it first becomes the thing philosophers will later attack.

Augustine of Hippo, writing in The City of God, refused the obvious framing. Confronting a report of the planet Venus altering its color, size, and course, he asked how anything could be contrary to nature that happens by the will of the Creator, since the will of so mighty a maker is itself the nature of each created thing. A portent, he concluded, happens not contrary to nature but contrary to what we know as nature. The move is decisive and has been called the epistemic theory of miracle: the marvel marks the edge of human knowledge, not a tear in the fabric of the world. Nature is whatever God wills; a miracle is only the part of that will we had not learned to expect. On this account the world contains no genuine exceptions, only surprises — and the surprise is located in the observer, not in the cosmos.

Thomas Aquinas accepted the divine grounding and added a taxonomy. In the Summa Contra Gentiles he ranked miracles by how far they exceed the powers of created nature. The lowest rank is what nature does ordinarily but is here done without its ordinary means — a fever, curable in itself, cured at once; rain falling with no working of the elements. The middle rank is what nature can do, but not in this order or sequence — sight after blindness, walking after lameness, life restored to one lately dead, where the effect is natural but the path is not. The highest rank is what nature could never accomplish by any means at all — the sun arrested in the sky, a body in two places, the dead of four days called living from the tomb. This last he reserved to God alone, because it exceeds not merely the order of nature but its entire capacity. Within these traditions the miracle was never arbitrary. It served revelation, authenticated a messenger, confirmed a prophecy, answered a divine ordering already at work — always a sign read inside a story already believed. The miracle does not found the faith; it points within a faith to its author. A wonder offered to someone with no story to read it by is, in this scheme, illegible — which is one reason the tradition was wary of signs sought for their own sake.

The same wariness drew a hard line against the wonder-working that lay outside the sanctioned story. A marvel might be worked by a demon as readily as by God, and the exorcist’s craft assumed exactly that; magic was condemned not always because it failed but because, when it seemed to succeed, the power behind it was suspect. The Neoplatonic defenders of theurgy had pressed a kindred distinction from the other side — Iamblichus arguing that the rites that drew down the gods were not coercive magic but a divine work, the gods consenting rather than compelled. The categories of legitimate and illegitimate wonder map, across traditions, less onto what is done than onto who is held to do it, and on whose authority.

The modern argument: evidence against power

The modern argument turns on evidence rather than on God’s power, and with that turn the question migrates out of theology and into the theory of knowledge. In his essay “Of Miracles,” the tenth section of An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748), David Hume reframed the matter as one of testimony. A wise man, he held, proportions his belief to the evidence; and a miracle is by definition the most improbable of events, since the whole weight of uniform experience stands against it. The proof from that experience is as complete as a proof from experience can be — that is what makes the event a miracle in the first place. Against this stands the testimony of those who report it, itself only as strong as our experience of human reliability. The two evidences are set on a balance, and Hume’s maxim is that no testimony suffices to establish a miracle unless its falsehood would be more miraculous than the event it reports — a bar testimony almost never clears, since liars and the deceived are common and suspended laws of nature are not.

The essay’s first part is this balance of probabilities argued in principle. The second part presses four considerations in fact: that no miracle has been attested by a sufficient number of witnesses of unquestioned good sense, education, and integrity, beyond suspicion of design; that human nature is drawn to the surprising and the wondrous, so that the passion of astonishment lends miracle-reports a momentum truth does not need; that such reports flourish chiefly among uncultivated peoples and recede as inquiry advances; and that the miracles of rival religions, each attesting its own creed against the others, cancel as evidence what they were summoned to prove. The argument does not deny that miracles could occur. It claims that one could never have sufficient grounds to credit a particular account of one — a thesis about testimony, not about the reach of God.

The placement is no accident: the case belongs to the program of empiricism, in which all matters of fact are known through experience and the inference from cause to effect is a habit of the mind rather than a glimpse of necessity. A miracle is, on this footing, the maximal strain such an inference can bear. The wager has been contested ever since — over whether it begs the question by building the conclusion into “uniform experience,” over whether the balancing of probabilities is even the right model, over what a law of nature even is once the necessity has been drained from it. Defenders have answered that a sufficiently improbable prior can be overcome by independent, concurring testimony; critics of the answer reply that nothing could count, on Hume’s terms, as sufficient. The essay set the terms for nearly every later discussion, and the discussion has not exhausted them.

Living traditions

Traditions hold the matter in their own ways, and the holding is doctrine, not mere custom. Across Christianity the categories sit close to the center of belief, since the founding events — and the promised return at the end of days — are themselves narrated as the supreme signs. The Catholic Church kept the post-biblical miracle as a working category and built an institution around testing it. In the causes of saints, a reported cure attributed to a candidate’s intercession is examined by physicians before it is examined by theologians; a medical board must judge the recovery complete, instantaneous, lasting, and beyond the resources of the medicine of the day, the diagnosis sound, the case otherwise inexplicable, before the wonder is weighed as a sign. Confirmed miracles function as evidential thresholds in the process: ordinarily one for beatification and a further one for canonization, with martyrdom relaxing the first. The scrutiny is not skepticism turned against faith but faith turned into procedure — Hume’s demand for sufficient testimony, met from inside the tradition by a court of its own.

Protestant Christianity divided over the same question. Much of the Reformation inheritance held that the age of miracles closed with the apostles, the signs having served to authenticate the revelation and become unnecessary once the canon was sealed — the position called cessationism, which through the early modern centuries also served as a polemic against the Catholic cult of relics and shrines. The historian Robert Bruce Mullin has traced how that position eroded across the nineteenth century until, by its end, the older Protestant consensus had largely collapsed, leaving some to discard even the biblical miracles and others to look for new ones to ground a faith the sciences had unsettled. Out of the latter impulse the Pentecostal and charismatic movements of the twentieth century made the continuance of the gifts — healing chief among them — a mark of the living church, reading the apostolic age not as closed but as a pattern still in force. The argument between cessation and continuance is internal to the tradition and is left to it; the categories alone concern the concept.

The theology of Islam drew its own distinction, and drew it sharply. The muʿjiza is the evidentiary sign granted a prophet — the very word carries the sense of rendering an opponent powerless, the miracle that no rival can match and that thereby confirms the messenger’s commission; the inimitability of the Qur’an, its iʿjaz, is held to be the supreme such sign of Muhammad. Distinct from it is the karāma, the grace or marvel granted a friend of God short of prophethood, typically unsought and unpublicized, carrying no claim and issuing no challenge. The wonders ascribed to the saints of Sufism fall under this second head, honored yet ranked below the prophetic sign and never confused with it. The thread common to these handlings is not a shared metaphysics but a shared use: the event is taken to carry a meaning, and the dispute is finally over how that meaning may be known, and on whose word.

Texts and scholarship

The primary documents of the debate remain in print and, in their older translations, in the public domain. Hume’s case stands in Section X of the Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748), the standard modern edition being Tom L. Beauchamp’s for the Clarendon Hume (Oxford, 2000); the argument’s anatomy and its long afterlife are laid out in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s survey of the question at plato.stanford.edu/entries/miracles. Augustine’s epistemic reading is fixed in Book XXI, chapter 8 of The City of God; Aquinas’s threefold ranking is set out in the Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III, chapter 101, with the parallel treatment of how God works above, against, and beside the order of nature in the Summa Theologiae, First Part, question 105. For the medieval architecture of the concept and the difficulty of telling a divine sign from a demonic counterfeit, Benedicta Ward’s Miracles and the Medieval Mind: Theory, Record, and Event, 1000–1215 (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1982) remains the standard study of the cult of miracles in those centuries.

The modern career of the dispute has its own historian. Robert Bruce Mullin’s Miracles and the Modern Religious Imagination (Yale University Press, 1996), cataloged at yalebooks.yale.edu, follows the question from the Reformation into the twentieth century and charts what one reviewer called the twilight of cessationism — the slow collapse of the Protestant conviction that the age of signs had closed. On the philosophical side, John Earman’s Hume’s Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles (Oxford University Press, 2000) reconstructs the testimony argument in the terms of probability theory and disputes its force, while the contrary case — that Hume’s maxim is sound and the prior against any miracle effectively insurmountable — is pressed across a literature surveyed in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s entry on the subject at iep.utm.edu/miracles. The Greek and Hebrew sign-vocabulary that underlies the whole Western tradition — sēmeion, teras, dynamis; ‘ot and mopheth — is parsed in the lexical philology of the New Testament, classically in Richard Chenevix Trench’s Synonyms of the New Testament (1854), which separates the three Greek words by aspect rather than by class.

What the long argument circles is a single tension. To call something a miracle is to claim both that it happened and that it could not have happened on its own — and the second claim is the one no observation settles. The marvel can be recorded; the hand behind it cannot. That gap is where the question has stayed.

→ In the library: Iamblichus on the Mysteries (Taylor, 1821)

→ Related: Metaphysics · Mysticism · Augustine Of Hippo · Thomas Aquinas · Revelation · Prophecy · Empiricism · Canonization · Beatification · Divine Providence · Christianity · Islam · Sufism · Theurgy · Magic · Exorcism · Second Coming