Have Miracles Ceased?

Recently, I received a call asking for some Bible study assistance. The person on the other end of the connection asked,

“Where does the Bible say that miracles have ceased?”

I responded with, “I assume you’re talking about 1 Corinthians 13?”

“No, that’s not it.”

“Well”, I told her, “if you don’t use 1 Corinthians 13, you’re out of options.”

“That can’t be, she said, “I know I have heard many preachers and Bible class teachers say that scripture states that ‘miracles have ceased’, and cite a scripture reference for it, but I just can’t seem to find it”.

And she won’t. Neither will you or I. It ain’t there. And it is my belief, as I told her, that 1 Corinthians 13 doesn’t say it either. She had already looked at that passage, and agreed with me. I can find no NT writings that say miracles will cease upon the deaths of the apostles; or upon the deaths of those on whom they laid hands. It isn’t there. Some will argue the implication is there, but the statements are not.

1 Corinthians 13 makes reference to the inferior nature of miraculous gifts, as compared to the gift of love. Paul supports that view by saying that prophecies, tongues, and knowledge will all pass away, but not love. So, in context, scripture does teach that miracles will cease. Most people, when asking the question of the hour, are referencing scripture that teaches that miracles do not exist today, and want to support the claim with the girding of 1 Corinthians 13.

I think it necessary, at this point, to say that I know of no miracles that have been worked, through men, discounting prayer and the providence of God. Do I believe that God is working through men today to heal the lame, restore sight to the blind, raise the dead, discern someone’s innermost thoughts, etc.? No, I do not.

That is somewhat different than saying God cannot, or that scripture teaches that He will not, or has ceased doing things, for His children, that His children cannot do for themselves. And this is where this discussion often gets complicated.

To me, a Bible miracle was God (Acts 2:22) demonstrating His existence, power and authority, through a human, and doing something that humans could not do without God. Of course, there were times when God intervened without human accompaniment. But, Bible miracles, in cases involving humans, were usually immediate, usually complete, fairly obvious to all, and beyond the realm of trickery and slight of hand. At least those that were written about generally fall into that description. How is that different than God answering my prayer to heal my loved one? If God answers that prayer as I have prayed, it certainly supports His existence; it is certainly a demonstration of His power; it is certainly a demonstration of His authority over the creation, and the laws of nature He established; and if medical science has done “all they know to do”, then God, by healing my loved one, has done something that a human could not do for himself?

If that is not so, why do we pray? Of course, God can intervene on behalf of someone who does not pray. My interest here is with those who do pray for God’s intervention, and yet may believe that He has ceased intervening.

If you associate God’s answers to prayers as His “providence” (which means God provided), and don’t like the word “miracle”, so be it. Just don’t say that God doesn’t do things in the lives of some that they cannot do for themselves.

To the point, though, of this article, we must look at the wording in 1 Corinthians 13. What does it say? Verse 10 says “… but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.” The sticking point on this verse is the phrase “when the perfect comes”. Paul has already stated that “we know in part and we prophesy in part” (at the time of his writing), referring to the “partial”. But what is “the perfect”? Some have argued it is the complete revelation of God’s Word, the complete compilation of the canonized scriptures.

Is that really what Paul was referring to?

If so, then upon the coming of the perfect, we would all know completely, and prophesy completely, as Paul states in verse 12. If the reference of the “perfect” is to the canonized scriptures, then Paul never knew completely or prophesied completely, even though he had a direct learning experience from the Lord.

Secondly, and most compelling, is that “the perfect”, in context, refers to our arriving in heaven. Completeness will be ours in heaven. We will not speak like a child, reason like a child, or think like a child (that is, immaturely or incompletely). But rather, we will speak, think, and reason maturely and completely. Paul adds, “then I will know fully as I have been fully known”.

In heaven, there will be no need for the gift of tongues, whether they be foreign languages or heavenly languages; there will be no need for the gift of prophesy; and there will be no need for the gift of knowledge. Only love will endure our transition to eternity. And that is why it is superior to all the gifts of the Spirit described in Paul’s writings, including faith and hope. And that is why, in my mind, the context requires the “perfect” to be interpreted as heaven.

So, fellowship lines don’t have to be drawn if you disagree, and those who do agree aren’t necessarily “pentecostal” for having this view. I believe my view is consistent with the context of the passage, 1 Corinthians, chapters 11 through 14.