In this discussion of the miracles of Jesus, the miraculousness of the gospel accounts has been elucidated on to a great degree. More recently, the series has focused on why certain miracles should not be considered compelling from a general standpoint. For contemporary readers of today, the miracles of Jesus carry a certain weight: We understand the difficulty in performing them due to the lack of technology of the time and our scientific knowledge. Even so, the gospels record eyewitnesses being in amazement at Jesus’ works. If that is the case, then why didn’t more rabbis find Jesus’ miracles to be compelling evidence for his divine claims? Here, I will attempt to scratch the surface of this complex topic.



First, let us begin with two miracles that establish two common pharisaical reactions to miracles in the gospels. When Jesus heals a man with a withered hand, Mark records the following [1]:



And they watched Jesus, [a] to see whether he would heal him on the Sabbath, so that they might accuse him. 3 And he said to the man with the withered hand, “Come here.” 4 And he said to them, “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?” But they were silent. 5 And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, and said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was restored. 6 The Pharisees went out and immediately held counsel with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him. Mark 3:2-5

Interestingly, the Pharisees are written as fully believing Jesus healed someone, and using this as evidence for Jesus disregarding the Sabbath. They aren’t concerned so much with what happened, but the legal implications within Judaic Law. A similar instance can be seen further on in the chapter. Mark later describes Jesus as performing many healings and exorcisms. The scribes strongly object to the latter [2], saying that



And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, “He is possessed by Beelzebul,” and “by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.” Mark 3:22

Mark’s characterization lends itself to the notion that Pharisees have religious, not evidentiary objections. This is precisely the view one might expect from the gospel. The writer would be motivated to explain why Christianity did not find greater acceptance in the Jewish community. Thus, it is critical to understand the Pharisees’ point of view, in their own words. Fortunately, a rough portrait of their beliefs can be constructed from Jewish writings of the time.



In 1947, Alex Guttman wrote an extensive paper called The Significance of Miracles for Talmudic Judaism. The Talmud is a collection of rabbinic scholarship with different tractates written from the year 200-500 A.D. Its temporal proximity to the gospels makes it one of the best sources for understanding how religious leaders of Jesus’ time approached miracles. However, Rabbis and Pharisees are not the same, but they are similar enough for this analysis. The Pharisees were Jewish leaders prior to the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 A.D. After the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 A.D., the role of the Pharisees was assumed by the Rabbis. This group shared many of the same philosophical and religious ideas as the Pharisees, but eschewed any admittance of connection for political purposes [6]. Thus, these Rabbinical writings provide the best description of how the Pharisees viewed Jesus’ miracles. Hereafter, any reference to ‘religious leaders’, ‘pharisees’, and ‘rabbis’ will be used with similar meaning.



One important concept is that religious leaders took the miracles of the Torah (or Old Testament) very seriously. Not only did they believe that these miracles happened [3], but treated disbelief as sinful:



“Disbelief in certain Biblical miracles or miracles recognized as such by Pharisaic tradition incurs the greatest possible punishment, the loss of one’s portion in the world-to come. However, disbelief in post-biblical miracles incurs no punishment at all.”

At least here, we can confirm that the Pharisees believed that miracles were possible in general. Miracles in the Talmudic are defined as acts of God, whether they be incidents that are inherently supernatural, or providential outcomes such as escaping a lion. In the case of the latter, there is a chance for wide interpretation, because one does not necessarily need divine favor to escape a lion (though it would help!). With regard to the latter, Guttman reveals a nuanced Rabbinic discussion [3] on making sense of supernatural feats (emphasis mine).

“The daughters of R.Nahman used to stir a cauldron with their hands when it was boiling hot” (this was considered first a miracle because they did not scald their hands) … “When they returned he [Rabbi Ilish] said they stirred the cauldron by witchcraft” (i.e. the daughters of R. Nahman were unworthy of a miracle, therefore there could not have been a miracle)

Guttman’s commentary on Gittin 45a is especially poignant. Rabbis of the day defined miracles as acts of God, meaning that an event could be interpreted as supernatural, but not necessarily a miracle. The women accomplished something that was clearly understood by their contemporaries as supernatural. This event is categorized as witchcraft because they were judged as being unworthy of divine intervention. If we briefly return our focus to the gospels, we find that this understanding can be easily translated to Jesus’ interactions with the Pharisees.



The Pharisees did not view Jesus of Nazareth favorably. It is easy to surmise how their relationship with him may have affected their interpretation of supernatural works. If Jesus was already considered to be a false prophet, then he would likely be considered unworthy of a miracle. Thus, Jesus’ works were likely seen as non-miraculous supernatural feats by skeptical Pharisees. If one accepts Sanhedrin 43a [4] (also from the Talmud) as a valid reference to Jesus, this perception of Jesus as a sorcerer becomes even stronger. Nevertheless, it can be also argued that even if Jesus’ miracles were accepted by rabbis, this would not necessarily have had an impact on belief in him as a messiah.



Early on in the series, it was stated that Jesus used miracles as a sign of divinity. These miracles were the framework from which his moral claims were constructed. However, this approach is not one that would have likely been accepted by Pharisees of the time. Guttman writes that



“whenever miracles made their appearance trying to interfere with legal matters of the Talmud’s own epoch, they were for the most part rejected, particularly if they made their appearance after Pharisaic Judaism became aware of the important role of the miracle in Christian propaganda”

The latter distinction Guttman makes is critical, because otherwise we might surmise that the Talmud’s entire approach to miracles was influenced by Christianity. That would suggest that the Pharisees of the time may not have been amenable to Jesus’ miracles as proof of divinity. Pharisaical reception of miracles in such matters was negative before the dawn of Christianity, and this continued afterwards. We also see examples in the Talmud where accepted supernatural feats cannot be used for doctrinal arguments.



He [Rabbi Eliezer] said to them [other Rabbis]: ‘If the Halaka [Jewish law] agrees with me, let this carob tree prove it!’ Thereupon the carob tree was torn a hundred cubits out of its place – others say four hundred cubits. ‘No proof can be brought from a carob tree,’ they replied. From “The Significance of Miracles for Talmudic Judaism” [3]

Rabbi Eliezer then said to them: If the halakha is in accordance with my opinion, the walls of the study hall will prove it. The walls of the study hall leaned inward and began to fall. Rabbi Yehoshua scolded the walls and said to them: If Torah scholars are contending with each other in matters of halakha, what is the nature of your involvement in this dispute? The Gemara relates: The walls did not fall because of the deference due Rabbi Yehoshua, but they did not straighten because of the deference due Rabbi Eliezer, and they still remain leaning. From the Bava Metzia [5]

Jesus’ approach to providing evidence for himself as divine would be inadmissible to the Pharisees. For the religious leaders of the day, a supernatural feat, no matter how impressive would not have sway in religious discussions. This understanding also yields a better explanation of Jesus’ use of miracles. The gospels typically record Jesus using the supernatural to appeal to laymen, and not rabbis. For Jesus, it was necessary to target the right audience. For modern readers of the gospels, it is important to realize that the Pharisaical rejection of Jesus’ miracles is likely from an ideological versus an evidentiary standpoint.

Sources