Previously, a case study of uncompelling resurrection miracles was given. Today, we seek to develop a more general understanding of what makes a miracle uncompelling. From this negative assessment, we can lay the ground works for a consistent model of miracles. Without further ado, here are four different miracles that should not be used for evidence of Jesus as a miracle worker:



Healing of Malchus

First, we’ll begin begin with the Healing of Malchus, a roman soldier whose ear was sliced off by Peter in Luke 22:47-54 [1] (recorded by all gospel accounts).

50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear. 51 But Jesus said, “No more of this!” And he touched his ear and healed him. Luke 22:50-51

Jesus simply touches the ear (possibly putting it back in place) and Malchus is healed. There’s little reason to disregard this as a genuine miracle if the event took place as described. It doesn’t require a medical degree to understand that one’s ear cannot be regrown, nor casually reattached when removed. The timescale at which the body can heal from such an injury is two weeks [2] (with assistance), rather than a matter of seconds. Furthermore, the body has a limited capacity to heal from such injuries to begin with. What takes place is described to be physically impossible, as with many of Jesus other miracles, yet the outcome is notably different.

Malchus’ ear is in place before and after the narrative – which means looking only at those instances in time, the only thing that has really changed is Jesus’ incarceration status. Other miracle accounts show a distinct effect of a miracle on the narrative. In Walking on Water, Jesus begins in one location and ends in another to the surprise of the Galileans. In the Resurrection of Lazarus, Lazarus dies, and is raised up for his siblings. In this miracle, however, the focus is entirely on Jesus and his disciples, with Malchus being a component almost by necessity. If Peter had been arrested for assault, this would have been more compelling evidence of an underlying event for the miracle. That would imply acknowledgement of an event critical to explaining the account. However, the authorities in this passage are effectively passive, even when literally attacked. Unlike other miracle accounts, no reaction from the other involved parties is given whatsoever. In fact, if we removed verses 49-51, no break in the narrative would occur. This cannot be said of previously discussed accounts. The miracle reads as though it could be an interpolation, rather than a critical part of the gospel’s account. That is not to say that it didn’t happen, but that it is futile to use this particular miracle in building a case for Jesus as a miracle worker.



Jesus Predicting His Death

Analysis of this miracle is especially tricky, since predictions of the future are difficult to gauge in general. In history, prophets typically made predictions about the future that were related to then-current events and politics. Predictions were not rigorously demonstrative of ability, such as predicting specific numbers that will occur in the future upon request. Prophecies were generally made on the prophet’s terms, not those of others [3]. In fact, the generality of prophetic predictions makes it harder to determine exactly how accurate they are.

For example, Jesus made predictions about his own death, which were interpreted by some pharisees as being references to the literal temple in Jerusalem.

18 So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?”19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”20 The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” 21 But he was speaking about the temple of his body.22 When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken. [4] John 2:18-23

As a hypothetical, consider if the temple was torn down, and rebuilt in some period of time related to the number three. Verse 22 states that it was only after Jesus had died that the disciples evaluated the prophecy as correct. Thus, if the hypothetical had occurred instead in Jesus’ lifetime, the prophecy would likely have been interpreted literally, rather than metaphorically. Often times with prophesy, the interpretation shifts to make a “best fit” for both the prediction and reality. As such, many of Jesus’ prophecies fall into that category of predictions. The gospels were also written after Jesus’ death, meaning that this prediction was possibly an invention of the writers. For a prophecy to be considered accurate and genuine, its existence and contextual interpretation must be confirmed prior to its fulfillment.

Finally, Jesus’ prophesy of his own death cannot be considered a miracle because it is something he had control over. Jesus notably does not defend himself in front of Pontius Pilot*, who does not want to punish him nor thinks he is guilty [5]. If an individual has a reasonable degree of influence over a prediction’s accuracy, the influence transforms the prophecy into a statement of intent.



Exorcism of the Syrophoenician woman’s Daughter

This is an extremely interesting case for two reasons. Firstly, we cannot be sure if this is necessarily an exorcism to begin with. The first century was a magical time: due to lack of understanding of the physical world, people tended to consider natural phenomena as supernatural. The woman’s daughter in this case could have suffered from an epileptic seizure, but was perceived to be possessed. Matthew 17:14–18 [6] similarly gives weight to the idea that demonic possession and epileptic seizures were often conflated in the first century. One might think that a case of epilepsy would merely transform the miracle into a healing, vs an exorcism. However, this possibility does far more damage to the intended interpretation than meets the eye.

Healing someone of epilepsy would certainly be supernatural, but that interpretation isn’t necessarily the one we get from the text. The passage ends with Jesus saying



“For this statement you may go your way; the demon has left your daughter.” 30 And she went home and found the child lying in bed and the demon gone. [7] Mark 7:29b – 30

Jesus is written as healing someone from a distance to show his power, but it actually introduces more uncertainty to the event. It took time for the woman to confirm that her daughter had been healed, as the text confirms that the healing took place within an hour. This makes it especially hard to demonstrate causality, because that is more than long enough for a seizure to end on its own[8]. If Jesus had been present with the daughter at the time of the healing/exorcism, and the seizure had stopped at his command, this would be evidence of a supernatural healing. The evidence still wouldn’t be very strong, since epileptic seizures come and go, leaving a possibility of this one ending on its own. This problem can be further illustrated with a similar case in modern times.

In 2006, a medical ‘healer’ named Dreamhealer [9] claimed to bring a military veteran out of a comatose state. Doctors had previously thought that the veteran, Trevor, would never awaken. Trevor’s wife asked Dreamhealer to heal her husband remotely. Surprisingly, Trevor did come out of his coma a few weeks afterwards. While Dreamhealer claims that it was his healing powers that made the difference, the length of time involved makes it difficult to confirm this. Any number of causes, including Trevor’s own neurological processes could have terminated the coma. Regrettably, “Instead of a full recovery, Trevor remains gravely ill” at the time of the writing. At the very least, medical followup was able to establish the full extent to which the healing occurred. The same cannot be said with the miracle in the gospel account. Ultimately, we cannot be sure if the girl never suffered from the demon/epilepsy thereafter.

*Pontius Pilot was the Roman governor over Judea.



Radford, B. (2006, July 29). Medical ‘Miracles’ Not Supported by Evidence. Retrieved June 23, 2019, from https://www.livescience.com/909-medical-miracles-supported-evidence.html