Grace Theological Journal 9.31 (1968) 12-23
Copyright © 1968 by Grace Theological Seminary. Cited with permission.
THE GOSPEL MIRACLES--THEIR NATURE
AND APOLOGETIC VALUE
WILLIAM R. EICHHORST
Chairman, Department of Theology
Carnell has correctly analyzed the present secular attitude toward the
miraculous when he states that "...the conflict between Christianity and
the scientific method shows itself no more perspicuously than in the latter's
unequivocal, uncompromising judgment against the possibility of miracles.1
The problem is not simply related to individual miracles. The controversy is
with the whole principle of the possibility of the supernatural.
The purpose of this study is not to attempt a solution to every problem
raised by the critic. Even if this could be done, it would not necessarily demand
the faith of the unbelieving sinner. The Bible does however record the
occurrence of many miracles and intends that they be recognized as an
evidence of supernatural revelation. The purpose of this article is to discover
the true nature of the Biblical miracles and to find what evidential value was
intended in their occurrence. The study will attempt to find what positive self-
authentication can be found in the Scriptures themselves where miracles are
included in the revelation.
Because of the vastness of the subject and the limitations of this article,
references will be confined largely to the miracles recorded in the Gospels.
Before proceeding to the burden of the study, two matters must be briefly
The Meaning of the Word "Miracle"
The word "miracle," from the Latin word miraculum, is so translated in the
New Testament of the Authorized Version from two Greek words. On twenty-
two occasions the word semeion is translated "miracle." This designation is
employed to show that the supernatural event was a sign of divine authority.
On eight occasions the word dunamis is translated "miracle" and the emphasis
is here on the inherent ability of the agent. Frequently, supernatural events are
also described as "wonders" through the use of the Greek words teras and thauma.
From the vocabulary of Scripture it can be observed that miracles are to be
distinguished from works of providence, which are wrought through secondary
causes, and from mere exotic occurrences of a "Believe It or Not" nature which
fall to be "signs” teaching a lesson.
THE GOSPEL MIRACLES -THEIR NATURE AND APOLOGETIC VALUE 13
Buswell's definition of a Biblical miracle is concise but comprehensive:
A miracle is (1) an extraordinary event, inexplicable in terms of ordinary
natural forces, (2) an event which causes the observers to postulate a super-
human personal cause, and (3) an event which constitutes evidence (a "sign")
of implications much wider than the event itself.2
While further discussion relating to the nature of miracles will follow,
the preceding definition will connote the author's use of the word "miracle" in
The Historical Evidence for the Gospel Miracles
If the New Testament documents are accurate in their historical record, there
can be little question about historical evidence for the miracles. It is for this reason
that those who question the validity of miracles must also deny the accuracy of
the record. Van Til, making reference to Barth, demonstrates how the denial of
miracle relates to the denial of history.
In a sermon of Matthew -23, he [Barth] treats of Jesus' walking on the
water to meet his frightened disciples. The same miracle that took place
then for the disciples, he argues, now takes place for us. Are we to say to
ourselves that this is an event in the past? No indeed! The same Jesus
comes to us now and in the same way that he did then, namely, through
a storm. Barth does not say that the physical event spoken of did not take
place, but in his exposition it has no unique position.3
Bultmann is more radical in his denial of the historical record. He believes
that Hellenistic miracles can be found everywhere. He does not doubt that Jesus
performed deeds which both in His eyes and in those of His contemporaries were
"miracles," but most of the accounts of miracles in the Gospels are the distillation
of legends or at least have a legendary trimming. The course of their history in
tradition was one in which the motives changed, and exaggerations occurred.4
What Bultmann has attempted to do is to separate the “real" history of Jesus
from the Gospel accounts of Jesus' life. If this can be done, the miraculous aspects
can be relegated to the "legendary trimming" found in the Gospels. To all such
attempts at denying the miraculous, Machen 's words of a past generation are still apropos:
The plain fact is that this "quest of the historical Jesus," as it has been
called--this effort to take the miracles out of the Gospels--has proved to be
a colossal failure. It is being increasingly recognized as being a failure even
by the skeptical historians themselves. The supernatural is found to be far
more deeply rooted in the Gospel account of Jesus than was formerly supposed.5
In a similar statement Machen affirms:
The outstanding result of a hundred years of effort to separate the natural
from the supernatural in the early Christian view of Jesus is that the thing
cannot be done. The two are inseparable. The very earliest Christian account
of Jesus is found to be supernaturalistic to the core.6
Accepting the Biblical record as reliable and the description of the miracles as
authentic study of the nature and evidential value of the miracles may now be pursued.
THE NATURE OF THE GOSPEL MIRACLES
The word "miracle" in modern usage has received so many connotations
that its meaning has become almost ambiguous. When the meaning is broadened
so that every unusual happening is a "miracle," the Gospel miracles lose their
distinctiveness. When the meaning is narrowed by antisupernatural scientism,
Biblical miracles become impossible. The miracles of the Gospels will not allow
for either explanation.
The Gospel Miracles and Pagan Similarities
Saintyves, as quoted by Van Der Loos, states:
Comparative religion reveals that belief in miracles is universal. In every
religion we find miracles resembling those of Judaism, Christianity and
Catholicism. They are all acts through faith and for faith, with the sole
difference that they relate to varied deities.7
The implication of the above statement is that because there are certain
similarities to be found in all miracle accounts, we must conclude they are all also
of the same nature.
A study of the miracles reveals that the New Testament accounts do have
much in common with the pagan stories, both in material and in form. One can
expect such similarities where there is a logical literary consequence of a certain
situation. The question to be answered however is: Do the accounts of miracles
in the New Testament and the pagan miracle stories resemble one another so
closely that the conclusion must be reached that there is not only analogy of
form but also a real dependence?8
The evidence from the Gospels presents a negative answer. It is the
differences are significant.
Van Der Loos, in answer to Saintyves, is careful to observe that the New
Testament miracles have nothing to do with sorcery or magic. They happen
by the Word of Jesus or his disciples. The stress falls on the necessity of faith
for Jesus blinds man to His person. The place occupied by miracles in the
whole of the proclamation of the gospel must always be borne
THE GOSPEL MIRACLES -THEIR NATURE AND APOLOGETIC VALUE 15
in mind.9 Form, style and type, which are common to both pagan and Christian
miracles, do not go much farther than to point to analogies. One must explain
the origin and existence of miracles from their own environment and situation.
The nature of the Gospel miracles is different.
The Gospel Miracles and Psychosomatic Healings
In an effort to deny the supernatural nature of the Gospel miracles, many
have sought to give "natural" explanations for them. It has been fashionable,
in particular, to explain the miraculous healings in terms of psychosomatic
response. Thus Ritschl has stated: "Miracle" is the religious name for an
event which awakens in us a powerful impression of the help of God, but is
not to be held as interfering with the scientific doctrine of the unbroken
connection of nature.10
Schleiermacher likewise asserts Christ was able to deliver people from
their sufferings by virtue of His moral purity, that is to say, His great spiritual
powers and His dominating will acted on a depressed will, something which
our experience allows us to understand.11
It is not denied that many physical ailments have a psychosomatic
base. Often when the mental condition is corrected, the physical condition
rights itself. Little notes, "Some medical authorities estimate that upwards
of eighty percent of the illnesses in our pressurized society are psychosomatic.”12
A closer look at the Gospel miracles, however, shows that a psychosomatic
explanation will not suffice. The resurrection of Lazarus from the dead (John 11)
certainly involves a supernatural outside force. The various cleansings from
leprosy are out of the psychosomatic category. The man born blind (John 9)
needed more than the comfort of a "depressed will."
Exponents of the above view should also be made aware of the
implications of their theories. If miracles are to be denied or "reinterpreted"
because they interfere with nature's laws, Christianity has little to offer.
If Jesus could not raise the dead or cleanse the leper, what comfort is there
for a human race that knows the reality of death and disease? Jesus
becomes a mere man and faith in Him nothing more than a delusion. "If
in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable"
(I Cor.15: 19).
The Gospel Miracles and Natural Law
For those who have a mechanically conceived world-view, miracles
are considered impossible. They are a transgression of the laws of
nature in a world-view that will not allow for outside interference.
Christians have reacted to this denial of miracle with various answers.
Some suggest that it is misrepresentative to define miracles as
a "transgression" of the laws of nature. Miracles, they say, simply
employ a higher natural law, which at present is unknown to us.
Thus Carnell states: ". ..since laws
yet unknown and unplotted may be called
16 GRACE JOURNAL
into account for some areas of experience which have not yet been
mastered, they may be called in to explain all.”13
Carnell has silenced the critic with this answer, but in the
process he has also destroyed the very point he has set out to make.
Little has well observed in relation to this issue,
A "law," In the modern scientific sense, is that which is regular
and acts uniformly. To say that a miracle is a result of a higher "law,"
then, is to use the term in a way that is different from its customary
usage and meaning.14
If miracles are the result of a higher law, scientists may yet discover
this law. The gospel miracles would then not be unique. They would
simply be the evidence of a superior intelligence or prior discovery.
They would not evidence the power of a sovereign God.
To say that miracles are not simply the employment of a higher
natural law, however, is not to say they are a "transgression" of natural law.
They are rather acts of creation--sovereign, transcendent acts of God's
supernatural power. They may involve an interference with nature, but they
do not contradict nature. Gerstner explains, ".. .the argument for miracle rests
on the regularity of nature generally. There is no such thing as supernatural
events except as they are seen in relation to the natural.”15
Indeed, the Gospel miracles show a wonderful harmony of miracle
with natural law. This is as it would be expected from the Maker of natural law.
Explaining this harmony Lewis states:
If events ever come from beyond Nature altogether, she will be no more
incommoded by them. Be sure she will rush to the point where she is
invaded, as the defensive forces rush to a cut in our finger, and there hasten
to accommodate the newcomer. The moment it enters her realm it obeys all
her laws. Miraculous wine will intoxicate, miraculous conception will lead
to pregnancy, inspired books will suffer all the ordinary processes of textual
corruption, miraculous bread will be digested. The divine act of miracle is
not an act of suspending the pattern to which events conform but of feeding
new events into that pattern.16
The Gospel miracles, thus, are neither incompatible with natural law nor
subject to the limitations of natural law. They are the works of the creator and
sustainer of nature and evidence of His sovereign will over nature and her laws.
Miracles and Divine
A subtle denial of the true nature of the Gospel miracles is to be found in the
theology of inmanence. The reasoning is as follows: What we call miracles are
in the New Testament called “signs” and “wonders.” But are not other events
which we call non–miraculous or natural also viewed as signs and wonders in
the Bible? In the Biblical view is not God behind
THE GOSPEL MIRACLES -THEIR NATURE AND APOLOGETIC VALUE 17
everything, the usual and the unusual, the common and the strange, and is He
not behind them equally? If God is the soul of history are not all miracles
simply natural events seen through consecrated eyes?
Pious as this view may sound, it fails to do justice to the Biblical
record and becomes a denial of the miracles of Scripture.
It is true that God's providential care is evident in all the world. Nature
is no stranger to his hand. It is governed by laws ordained by Him and thereby
provides us with a determinate universe. But to apply the word "miracle" as it
is used in the Biblical sense to all acts of God's providence is to deny nature
its reality. Such a universe would make science impossible.
The Biblical miracles are clearly an interference with the existing laws
of nature. To identify them with providence generally is also to deny their
The Gospel Miracles and Jesus Christ
Jesus fully recognized the existence and function of the laws of nature.
To deny them would have involved a denial of his own creative power
(John 1:3). His life was lived amid the function of natural law. Because a
lack of food produces hunger, Jesus hungered (Matt. 4:2); atmospheric
forces which created a stomy sea, involved his comfort as well. The
relationship between Jesus Christ and natural law is best seen when we
recognize He was not "against" natural law but sovereign "over" it.
Two things may be noted about the relationship of Jesus to the
Gospel miracles which He performed.
First, with Van Der Loos, we observe that "...one point on which
the Evangelists are unanimous is that Jesus acted with ‘power.'"17
Luke states that "...Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into
spake among themselves, saying, What a word is this! For with
authority and power he commandeth the unclean spirits, and they
come out" (Luke 4:36). Clearly Jesus' miracles evidence the interference
of supernatural power with an environment governed by natural law.
Second, we observe, "...the aim of Jesus' miracles was in all
cases the salvation of mankind."18 This means that Jesus did not
perform a single punitive miracle. Thus, when the disciples wished
to call fire from heaven upon Jesus' enemies, he rebuked them and
said, "the Son of Man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save
them" (Luke 9:56). It is not unlikely that even John the Baptist expected
punitive miracles. His question, "Art thou he that should come or do
we look for another?" (Matt. 11:3), may well have been asked because
he expected Jesus to baptize also "with fire" (Matt. -12).
Thus the true nature of the Gospel miracles must be seen in
relation to the person and mission of Jesus Christ. In Him are found
their source, their purpose and their impact.
18 GRACE JOURNAL
THE EVIDENTIAL VALUE OF THE GOSPEL MIRACLES
Everyone who reads the Gospels must be struck by the fact that
the Jewish leaders do not seem to be in the least affected by the
miracles of Jesus. It is not because they know Jesus' miracles only
through hearsay, for they were often eyewitnesses to them (Matt. 9:1-8).
The same indifference can also be observed by the populace.
After the five thousand were fed Jesus said to those who sought Him,
"Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles but because ye did eat
of the loaves, and were filled" (John 6:26).
If miracles could not demand the faith of those who saw them,
should we expect them to do so of people today? What is the evidential
value of the Gospel miracles? Will they command the intellectual man's
assent? These and similar questions now receive our attention.
The Validity of Scriptural Testimony
It is necessary to recognize the validity of the historical record before
proceeding to the evidential value of miracles. It must be made clear that
the miracle accounts are not a matter of myth or folklore but are accounts
of real happenings. Their evidential value depends upon this.
Ramm has listed several reasons for belief in the historical reliability
of the miracles.
First, there were many miracles performed before the public eye.
No effort is made to suppress investigation.19
Second, some miracles were performed in the company of
unbelievers. The presence of critics had no influence on Jesus' power.20
Third, Jesus performed His miracles over a period of time and
in great variety. He was not limited in his repertory.21
Fourth, we have the testimony of the cured. Frequently the
healed person is said to have gone proclaiming that he was healed.22
Unless the whole Gospel record can be proven false, the miracles
must be accepted as historically real.
The Nature of the Evidential Value
The problem which confronts us next is: If the evidence is
convincing that Christ did work miracles, what do these miracles prove?
We have already observed that neither the Jewish leaders nor
the Palestinian populace were necessarily affected by Jesus' miracles
although they saw and believed them. Obviously,
THE GOSPEL MIRACLES -THEIR NATURE AND APOLOGETIC VALUE 19
if there is an evidential value to miracles, it must involve more than
rational assent. Several observations can be made.
The Gospel miracles are not isolated events. They form a part
of the message of Christ which must be accepted or rejected but
which cannot of itself produce faith.
Inseparably linked with the message of Christ is the person of
Christ. The miracles are not simply works wrought by Christ but "
are rather a constitutive element of the revelation of God in Christ.”.23
A recognition of the miracles of Christ was to be accompanied with a
recognition of the commission of Christ. Therefore Jesus said to the
unbelieving Pharisees, "But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God,
Nicodemus seems to have recognized this fact when he said to Jesus,
"We know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do
these miracles that thou doest, except God be with Him” (John 3:2).
Nor can we separate the evidential value of miracles from the
subject of personal faith. When Mark states that Jesus could do no
mighty work in
folk, and healed them" (Mark 6:5), there seems to be a suggestion of
inability on the part of Jesus. However, Matthew's rendering of the
same account tells us the inability was "because of their unbelief"
(Matt. ). It is significant, as Van Der Loos observes, that the
censure of the Jewish leaders nowhere falls on the miracles of Jesus
as such, but on attendant circumstances. He is reproached with
healing on the sabbath (Matt. -14). They resent Jesus saying
that He can forgive sins (Matt. 9:3).24 Even at Jesus' trial the miracles
were not discussed although the Old Testament spoke against any
in the miracles is not because they were unreal but because unbelief
stood in the way.
One further observation needs to be made. Closely related to
the rejection in unbelief is the cause of unbelief, namely, the spiritual
blindness of the human heart.25 As "the heavens declare the glory
of God" (Ps. 19: 1) but darkened hearts fail to see, so the miracles
manifest the power of Christ but blinded minds fail to understand.
To the Christian the evidential value is obvious, but to the unregenerated
heart it is unconvincing.
The evidential value of miracles is therefore not of such a nature
that the "rational" mind must give assent and faith must follow. It is
rather a part of the witness concerning the person and message of
Christ that may be accepted or rejected. The miracles are simply a
part of the larger evidence of the whole testimony of Christ--and
beyond this, of the whole Bible. They were never intended to be a
separate and unrelated proof of Christianity. They are a part of the
The Apologetic Content of the Gospel Miracles
When miracles are recognized as a part of the self-vindicating
aspect of divine revelation, they supply a powerful apologetic value
to the Christian witness.
20 GRACE JOURNAL
A revelation of Christ’s glory. After Jesus performed his first
miracle at Cana of Galilee John writes, “The beginning of
miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his
glory, and his disciples believed on him (John 2: 1). It is most fitting
that the revelational aspect of Jesus' first miracle is thus emphasized.
Thus Garvie writes:
...a Christ who being Son of God, and seeking to become
Saviour of men, wrought no miracle, would be less intelligible
and credible than the Jesus whom the Gospel records so
consistently present to us.”26
A study of the Gospel miracles reveals how well they do
manifest the glory of Christ. They are, as Garvie states, altogether
congruous with His Person, His mission, and His message. He is Himself
supernatural in His sinless, perfect, moral character, and in His religious
consciousness of representing God to man as Messiah and Son of God.27
The reason Christ's glory was recognized by some and not by
others has already been stated. Spiritual blindness hindered the
unbelieving from seeing it. Bruce elaborates on this point by observing,
The Pharisaic method was to begin at the outside. Starting from the
data of miraculous signs viewed abstractly as mere wonders,
they tried to read the heart, and they failed. The method of the
disciples was to start from within and reason outwards. Discerning
the spirit of Jesus with the clear vision of an honest heart, they
read in the light of it all His outward conduct, and saw in all His acts,
miraculous or otherwise, the self-manifestation of the Christ, the
Son of the living God.28
As a revelation of Christ's glory, the miracles relate to His offices
of Messiah, Prophet and Priest.
When John the Baptist, through his disciples, asked Jesus, "Art
thou he that should come, or do we look for another?" (Matt. 11:3), the
answer was, "Go and show John again those things which ye do hear
and see: The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk. .." (Matt. 11:4-5).
The coming of Christ and the miracles he performed meant that the
Messianic era had dawned.
After the death of Moses, the Old Testament record states:
arose not a prophet since in
the Lord knew face to face, in all the signs and the wonders, which the
Lord sent him to do in the
As the organ of revelation of God, the prophet was able to perform
miracles and signs. Jesus demonstrated that He also came in the
ministry of a prophet. As a priest, Jesus was moved with pity on
and individuals. In
"he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted
and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd" (Matt. ).
THE GOSPEL MIRACLES -THEIR NATURE AND APOLOGETIC VALUE 21
Thus the Gospel records make the point perfectly clear: The miracles
were a part of the revelation of the glory of Christ.
A confirmation of Christ's doctrine. The nature of the Gospel miracles
demonstrates that the purpose is not simply the proof of doctrine. What they
do claim for Christ first of all "is a right to be listened to: [putting] him in the
alternative of being from heaven or from hell.”29
But this is not their most significant purpose. They are also vehicles of
revelation and as such possess characteristics congruous to the nature of the
revelation with which they are associated.30 Bruce further explains that, "If the
sole purpose of miracles were to serve as evidences of a doctrinal revelation, all
miracles would be alike good, provided only they were miraculous.”31
But, the raising of Lazarus (John 11) revealed Jesus as the Resurrection
and the Life; the feeding of the five thousand revealed Him to be the Bread of
Life. The true relationship between the miracles and doctrine "...is one of mutual
interdependence, the miracles proving the doctrines and the doctrines approving
the miracles.”32 Garvie further states that the miracles "...were not primarily
credentials of His mission, but only secondarily so as constituents of that
mission to reveal God, not only as enlightening truth, but as saving grace.”33
This interdependence of miracle and doctrine further evidences the self-
authenticating nature of the Scriptures. Jesus would not overcome unbelief by
any display of His power. No sign was given to a "wicked and adulterous
generation" (Matt. 16:4). Jesus depreciated the faith in Himself that rested
only upon His miracles (John 4:48). He desired faith wrought in a conception
of His whole person.
In this sense miracles are a confirmation of Christ's doctrine. His power
evidences the origin of His doctrine. The signs illustrate the truth of His
doctrine. And the spiritual discernment needed to appreciate the miracles
is indicative of the nature of His doctrine.
A stimulation to Christian faith. Assuming that Jesus' purpose in
performing miracles was the same as John's purpose for recording them,
one of the purposes of the miracles was to arouse faith. John states:
And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of His disciples,
which are not written in this book: but these are written, that ye might
believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing
ye might have life through His name (John 20:30-31).
The above assumption regarding the purpose of miracles appears
valid, for concerning Jesus' first miracle, John writes that Jesus "manifested
forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him" (John 2:11).
This stimulation to faith arises, not so much because the miracles
prove the authority of Christ, (for the Pharisees did not accept them
as such proof), but because the miracles are
22 GRACE JOURNAL
a part of the whole supernatural revelation of God. Because the
Word of God is "alive" and "active" (Heb. ), the miracles, as
a part of divine revelation, partake of a similar character. As a part
of divine revelation they become a part of divine witness to the
truth (Heb. 2:4).
When any divine revelation is given, man is called upon to
repent and believe. Thus Jesus reproaches the Galilean cities that
had had many miracles because they "repented not" (Matt. -21).
Peter reminds the people of
was "approved of God" among them by "miracles and wonders and
signs" (Acts 2:22). He had a right to claim the allegiance of these
people to Christ. The revelation maybe rejected but not without the
verdict that light has been ignored and repudiated.
As a revelation of God, therefore, the miracles function as a
powerful stimulation to faith in Christ.
The Gospel accounts were accepted at face value and as such
have demonstrated miracles therein to be supernatural occurrences
imbedded in the history of the first century. They are distinguished
from the pagan miracles because they go beyond the realm of magic
and must be explained in relation to the character and doctrines of
Christ. Their occurrence cannot
be explained as being the result of psychosomatic healings or feats
of superior knowledge. The nature of the miracles defies such an explanation.
While the miracles are not opposed to natural law, nevertheless,
they are interfere with it, being above and beyond its limitations and
controls. They are the direct results of the power of Christ who
performed them as an expression of His Lordship and Saviourhood.
Thus, as an evidence for the truth of Christianity, the miracles
form a part of Christ’s self-revelation. Only when He is accepted by
an act of personal faith can they be properly appreciated. But when
they are accepted on that basis, they reveal His eternal Glory as the
Creator-God; they confirm His doctrines as the words of a heavenly
messenger; and they arouse a faith that is rooted in His incomparable
1. Edward J. Carnell, An Introduction to
2. James Oliver Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion (Grand
3. Cornelius VanTil,
The New Modernism (
THE GOSPEL MIRACLES -THEIR NATURE AND APOLOGETIC VALUE 23
4. R. Bultmann, Die
Geschichte der Synoptischen
1957), p. 244.
5. J. Gresham Machen,
The Christian Faith in the Modern World
I6. Ibid., p. 199.
7. H. VanDer Loos, The Miracles of Jesus (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1965), p.4.
8. Ibid., p. 117.
9. Ibid., p. 137.
10. A. Ritschl, Unterricht in der Christlichen Religion (
11. F. Schleiermacher, Das Leben Jesu (Berlin: K. A. Rutenik, 1864), pp. 219-227.
12. Paul E. Little, Know Why You
Publications, Inc., 1967), p. 57.
13. Carnell, op. cit., p.257.
14. Little, op.cit., p. 58.
15. John H. Gerstner, Reasons for Faith
Publishers, n.d.), p.90.
16. C. S. Lewis, Miracles (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1947), p. 72.
17. Van Der Loos, op. cit., p. 180.
18. Ibid., p195.
19. Bernard Ramm, Protestant Christian Evidences (Chicago: Moody Press, 1953),
22. Ibid., p.142.
23. Richard Chenevix
Trench, Notes on the Miracles of our Lord (
Fleming H. Revell Co., 1953), p. 102.
24. Van Der Loos, op. cit., p. 146.
25. Trench, op. cit., pp. 100-102.
26. Alfred Ernest Garvie,
A Handbook of Christian Apologetics (
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1913), p. 73.
27. Ibid., p. 71.
28. A. B. Bruce. The Miraculous Element
in the Gospels (
Stoughton, 1886), p. 289.
29. Carnell, op. cit., p. 271.
30. Bruce, op. cit., p. 290.
32. Trench, op. cit., p. 104.
33. Garvie, op. cit., p.71.
This material is cited with gracious permission from:
Grace Theological Seminary
Please report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at: firstname.lastname@example.org