Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary

The Lord’s Miracles and the Lord’s Deity

A PaperSubmitted to Dr. Leo Percer

In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Course

Johannine TheologyNBST 995/THEO 995

byFloyd E. Schneider

March 22, 2014

ABSTRACT

The Value and Use of Biblical Theology for

Understanding the Relationship of the Baptism of Christ and

the ensuing relationship with the Holy Spirit as He (and the

Father) contributed to the Lord’s miracles in the Gospels,

and especially John, without diminishing the Deity of the

Son. The incarnation introduced a brand new relationship

between the Holy Spirit and the Messiah. The baptism of

Jesus was the event in which the Holy Spirit entered into a

new relationship with the Son of God. After the revelation

of this new relationship, both the Father and the Holy

Spirit played a more prominent role in the Lord’s

performance of His miracles than did the Deity of Jesus.

Their involvement in no way diminishes the Deity of the Son

of God. This paper will limit its research to the Gospels,

and especially the Gospel of John.

Definition of Biblical Theology

Beginning a paper with a quote violates ingenuity, but

one of the best statements about the definition of Biblical

Theology was made by Brevard S. Childs, “It has long been

recognized that the term ‘Biblical Theology’ is ambiguous.”1

1 Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), p. 3.

Edward W. Klink and Darian R. Lockett expand on five

definitions of Biblical Theology.2 J. P. Gabler, in his

oratio3 in 1787, separated Biblical Theology from Dogmatic

Theology. He distinguished between auslegen (exegesis), which

was based on history, authorship, linguistics and the

analogy of the faith, and erklären (exposition). Later

theologians rejected his literal approach for different

philosophical idealisms, which separated the inspired text

from theology, thus allowing numerous subjective elements to

determine theology apart from the Bible. German theologians

originated the term Heilsgeschichte (literal translation,

“history of salvation”) for Biblical Theology, but could not

come to a consensus on its definition. This term became a

veil for philosophy apart from the text or from any concrete

connection to historical events. Biblical Theology then

required critical reconstruction to determine the “real”

2 Edward W. Klink III and Darian R. Lockett, Understanding Biblical Theology: A Comparison of Theory and Practice ( Grand Rapids: Zondervan, a part ofHarperCollins Publishing, 2012).

3 http://jimhamilton.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Gabler-ProperDistinction-BiblicalTheology.pdf

theology behind the text. The conclusions usually reflected

“unabashed propaganda for modern liberal Protestant

theology.”4

The cultural-linguistic approach, as promoted by George

Lindbeck,5 argues that the human experience is shaped by

cultural and linguistic forms. This view reverses the

original intent of the biblical text sent as God’s Word to

transform human experience. Ben C. Ollenburger6 argues that

the Bible’s authority and meaning comes from the church’s

predetermined praxis. The liturgy of the church thus

determines the meaning of the text. Numerous other

approaches exist7 which this paper will not evaluate.

It seems that Biblical Theology could be considered a

“movement,” but James Smart stated that calling biblical 4 Childs, p. 18.

5 George Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine (Louisville: Westminster JohnKnox Press, 1984).6

Ben C. Ollenburger, Old Testament Theology: Flowering and Future (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004).

7 Sociological, feminist, and Jewish perspective, Liberation theology.

theology a “movement” was “the kiss of death.”8 Movements

eventually cease to exist, but the Bible’s theology has

endured two centuries of attempts to misrepresent it as it

arises from a historical-cultural-grammatical hermeneutic.

This paper will reference different approaches of Biblical

Theology as necessary but will base its conclusion on actual

historical events and the faith aspect involved rather than

“by applying source, form, redaction, or some other form of

‘higher’ criticism”9 or “on the basis of a self-chosen

agnosticism.”10

Background of John’s Gospel

Before looking at a specific issue in John, the

Gospel’s background should be established. As Craig R.

Koester notes, the Gospel was probably written after A.D.

90, and although the Early Church believed and proclaimed

8 James D. Smart, The Past, the Present and Future Biblical Theology (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1979), p. 10.

9 Andreas J. Köstenberger, A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), p. 40.

10 Köstenberger, p. 9.

that the Apostle John wrote it, the author is not named.11

Based on John 21:24 Craig and others believe that John’s

text was completed after his death, “we know that his

testimony is true.” The purpose verses in John 20:30-31

states that Jesus did more signs than written in the book,

but the sign of catch of fish narrative follows (21:25),

indicating that the “Seams in the narrative give some

evidence of editing.”12 Scholars are divided in their

opinion about the double ending theory in John. A double

ending could indicate that the fish narrative, etc., was

added a little later, but that it was merged before the

completed manuscript began to be copied profusely.13 Since

this is simply a supposition, critical Biblical Theology

will seek to interpret the text as it appears in today’s

text.

The similarities and differences between the Synoptics

and John’s Gospel can best be explained by John’s 11 Craig R. Koester, The Word of Life: A Theology of John’s Gospel (Grand

Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2008), p. 3.12

Ibid., p.3.13

Ibid., p. 3.

acquaintance with them, and he simply wrote his Gospel as an

addition. Craig R. Koester notes Clement of Alexandria’s

claim that “after the first three gospels had recorded the

‘physical’ things about Jesus’ ministry, John composed a

‘spiritual’ gospel (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 6.14.5).”14 John could

have simply written his gospel from his memory being guided

by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21). In either case he wrote

his gospel from his own perspective. This study will assume

that John probably had the Synoptics in some form at his

disposal.

John, being a devote Jew, would have also assumed that

his Jewish contemporaries were conversant with their own

Law, traditions, and customs. This would include an

understanding of the Old Testament salvation history

revealed in the Mosaic Law and his eyewitness accounts (John

1:14). Without explaining why, John builds his book around

the festivals, especially the Passover. It seems that he

expects his Jewish readers to recognize the allusions from

14 Craig R. Koester, The Word of Life: A Theology of John’s Gospel (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2008), p. 4.

the Old Testament to various incidents in his gospel. John’s

inclusion of the Logos (embedded in Greek and Roman

philosophy) in chapter one and the Samaritan woman (Jewish

enemies) in chapter four indicate that John was writing for

a wider audience than just his Jewish world.

The author, the background, the intended audience, but

especially the text as it exists today, all contribute to

use of Biblical Theology to properly interpret and apply the

text across cultures. Köstenberger notes, “The theology of a

given document is revealed in the content of the specific

literary form in which it is conveyed. This, in turn,

capitalizes on the strength of Biblical Theology—in its

careful attention to biblical terminology and the original

historical context.15 Biblical Theology will, therefore,

arise from the actual text of Scripture as exegeted

according to historical-grammatical-cultural hermeneutical

principles.

Miracles

15 Köstenberger, p. 46.

The Gospels include numerous narratives that have been

described as “miracle stories” by theologians who favor the

use of Formgeschickte (Form Criticism).16 This approach has led

to the rejection of the authenticity of most of the miracle

stories. Craig S. Keener has countered this trend in his

two-volume work, Miracles.17 Keener left no stone unturned in

his annihilation of any reasonable doubt that miracles

exist. He began with his two purpose statements.

My primary argument, based on substantial evidence, is that historians should not dismiss the possibility of eyewitness information in the miracle accounts in the Gospels or Acts, since large numbers of eyewitnesses can and do offer miracle claims, many of them quite comparable in character to the early Christian accounts. . . .18 My secondary and more controversial argument, engaging more debated philosophic approaches,is that we should not rule out the possibility of supernatural causation for some of these healing claims.19

16 Rudolf Bultmann carried this approach to an extreme, and his method never dealt with the text of Scripture directly. Rudolf Bultmann,History of the Synoptic Tradition (trans. John Marsh; New York: Harper & Row, 1963), pp. 209-244.

17

Craig S. Keener, Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011).18

Ibid., p. 2.19

Ibid., p. 3.

After thoroughly analyzing and refuting Hume’s

arguments against the possibility of miracles, Keener gives

hundreds of examples of eyewitness accounts of miracles from

around the world. He then removes the façade of shallow

academic research by revealing the biased and prejudiced

presuppositions that automatically reject even the

possibility of miracles, placing the burden of proof on

those who will not even consider the massive amount of

evidence uncovered by Keener’s research.

Gary R. Habermas, the foremost authority on the

resurrection of Jesus Christ, preceded Keener’s work with

numerous volumes on this subject,20 and N. T. Wright has

written followed with and eight hundred page volume on the

resurrection of Jesus Christ as the ultimate miracle.21

Based on the research of the above-mentioned authors, among

others, rejecting the viability of miracles is no longer

academically justifiable. Serious research on miracles has

20 Gary R. Habermas and R. Douglas Geivett, In Defense of Miracles: A Comprehensive Case for God’s Action in History, Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press,1997).21

N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003).

moved away from the marginalization of the historicity and

theology of Jesus’ miracles. The attempt to reconstruct the

historical Jesus22 on the basis of biased presuppositions

that reject miracles have been thoroughly answered and

revealed to be a waste of time by men like Johannes Weiss

and Albert Schweitzer.23 The foundation of divine revelation

rests with the canon of Scripture, not human reconstructions

that deny that canon, and miracles play a vital part in

understanding this divine revelation.

The Gospels and Acts contain a wide variety of

miracles. Over thirty percent of the Gospel of Mark contains

full-blown descriptions of specific miracles, as well as

summaries of miracles. The miracles served a number of

purposes, but the rest of this paper will focus on the one

22

John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991); Marcus J Borg, Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary (New York: HarperCollins, 1996).23

Johannes Weiss, Jesus Proclamation of the Kingdom of God (ed. and trans. Richard Hiers; ed. David Holland; Chico: Scholars Press, 1985); Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus (trans. W. Montgomery; intro. JamesM. Robinson; New York: Macmillan: 1968).

miracle that changed the Holy Spirit’s relationship to Jesus

was the descent of the dove at Jesus’ baptism.

The Holy Spirit’s Shift

From Genesis to Malachi the Bible identifies the Holy

Spirit in relationship to God. The incarnation introduced a

brand new relationship between the Holy Spirit and the

Messiah. The apostle Paul reveals this shift in numerous

passages when he refers to “the Spirit of Jesus Christ”

(Rom. 8:9; 1 Cor. 15:45; Gal. 4:6; Phil. 1:19). The text

gives no indication that a conflict existed between the

Messiah’s own spirit and the Holy Spirit, nor that the Holy

Spirit replaced the Messiah’s own spirit. An attempt to

solve these puzzles would only be based on mere speculation.

Neither do the Scriptures indicate that the Holy Spirit

ceased to have His original relationship with the Father.

The Scriptures simply inform us that a new relationship has

come into existence between the Holy Spirit and Jesus.

What was the actual process of this new (additional)

relationship? How did the Holy Spirit relate to Jesus during

the Lord’s earthly life before the Crucifixion? Scripture

reveals the initial event of this change occurred at the

Lord’s baptism. What part did the Lord’s baptism play in

this new relationship? What does the Gospel of John have to

contribute to this discussion?

Whereas Matthew and Luke begin this revelation with the

birth of Christ, John starts with the entrance of the divine

pre-existence of Jesus and the Holy Spirit’s entrance to

Mary. John also skips water baptism completely. He focuses

entirely on the anointing of, the indwelling in, and the

union of the Holy Spirit in Jesus. The baptism of Jesus

becomes the cornerstone for this new relationship between

the Holy Spirit and the Son of God.

The Baptism of Jesus in Matthew and Mark.

Accepting biblical theology’s research into the time of

John’s writing of the Gospel, this paper assumes that John

had the Synoptics at his disposal when the Holy Spirit moved

him to formulate these verses. In order to determine why

John deals with Jesus’ baptism in the way he did, the

Synoptics need to be evaluated as background for John’s

revelation.

Mark’s Gospel leaves out the Lord’s baptism. Matthew

emphasizes the Lord’s intention to get baptized (του

βαπτισθηναι υπ’ αυτου) in 3:13. The article with the

infinitive signifies purpose. This stands out even more when

the occurrence is rare as it is in Matthew (only 7 times).

John the Baptist was apparently not prepared for this move

as he attempted to hinder the event by claiming that the

reverse was necessary, i.e., the Lord should baptize John

(3:14). The text reveals nothing of John the Baptist’s logic

for this comment. It can only be assumed that the Baptist

was ready and willing to make a public stand in baptism as

evidence of his own personal repentance of his sins, and

that he would welcome the coming of the Messiah, as he had

preached to the crowds.

Jesus declines and simply replies, “Let now” (Αφες

αρτι), translated “permit it now,”24 which does not answer

John’s question. The Lord’s motivation for being baptized by

John had to do with the fulfillment of “all righteousness”

(Matt. 3:15). How does the Lord’s baptism “fulfill all

righteousness”? Frederick Dale Bruner believes that the

baptism is “publicly declaring Jesus’ deliberate decision to

seek to live a life of righteousness in every particular . .

. to do the will of God.”25 Bruner, and others,26 believe

that righteousness is for Matthew the equivalent of doing

God’s will.

Matthew and Luke also seem to shift toward the

anointing of Jesus by the Spirit. Numerous commentators have

noted this.27 Luke does not mention water, but focuses on

24 NKJV.

25 Frederick Dale Bruner, Matthew A Commentary: The Christbook Matthew 1-12(Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2004), p. 102.

26 G. Bornkamm, G. Barth, and H. J. Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, tr. P. Scott (London: SCM; Philadelphia: Westminister, 1963) pp. 137-41.

27 James Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit (London: SCM Press, 1970), 33-37; I. H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, NIGTC (Exeter: Paternoster; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), pp. 150-157.

the Holy Spirit. His sentence structure28 implies that the

baptism actually preceded the main event of the descending

of the Holy Spirit and the dove. It seems that the Holy

Spirit’s arrival was connected with the Lord’s praying, and

not the baptism. If Jesus was baptized in a crowd, then the

water was secondary to the event of the Holy Spirit. Luke

emphasizes the Holy Spirit’s role in the messianic age in

Acts 2:17 during Pentecost when he quotes Joel 2:28. Luke

even omits the water when he reveals Peter’s explanation of

the Lord’s baptism to Cornelius in Acts 10:38 (“how God

anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power”). Matthew

seems to place the Lord’s exit up out of the water before

the coming of the Holy Spirit (“Jesus came up immediately

from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened . . .”).

The Baptism of Jesus in John 1:20-34

28

Εγενετο (aor. mid. indic.) followed by four infinitives, and the Lord’s baptism as an aor. pass. ptc., indicates a past event before the main event in the rest of vv. 21-22.

The apostle John apparently completes this shift of the

Holy Spirit. John mentions nothing of water baptism and

focuses entirely on Jesus’ anointing with the Holy Spirit.

This shift impacts John the Baptist. None of the Synoptics

make it clear that John knew Jesus before His baptism. The

baby in Elizabeth’s womb jumping for joy at the presence of

Mary cannot seriously support the connection of acquaintance

between John and Jesus. Although Mary and Elizabeth were

related, the Scriptures reveal no contact between Jesus and

John during their childhood. John the Baptist’s very words

in John 1:31 and 34 indicate that the baptism was their

first official meeting. “I did not know Him; but that He

should be revealed to Israel, therefore I came baptizing

with water.” Apparently, the baptism was the event during

which Jesus was revealed to John. The water baptism,

however, did not reveal Jesus to John, but the ascent of a

dove performed this function. The Baptist is quoted in John

1:32 as remembering what happened during the baptism that

revealed to him the correct person as the Messiah. “And John

bore witness, saying, ‘I saw the Spirit descending from

heaven like a dove, and He remained on Him.’” This event

lead the apostle John to agree with Matthew, Mark, and Luke,

that Jesus is the Son of God.

John 1:33, however, adds to the Synoptic revelation. “I

did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water

said to me, ‘Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and

remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy

Spirit.’” Before the water baptism, the Baptist is given his

own personal revelation about this event. This revelation

enabled John to recognize Jesus as the Messiah. John was in

the middle of baptizing a lot of people, and Jesus appeared

as a mere mortal with no outward halo to distinguish Him

from any other repentant Hebrew. God gave John the Baptist a

prophecy of this coming event. Gary M. Burge comments about

this revelation of God: “John is not among the Rabbis and

teachers of Israel. He is now a bona fide OT prophet with

the proper credentials to be Jesus’ supreme witness.”29 When

the event of water baptism actually transpired, it became

29 Gary M. Burge, The Anointed Community: The Holy Spirit in the Johannine Tradition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), p. 52.

the vehicle for publicly presenting Jesus to Israel (John

1:31), but it was the coming of the Spirit that indicated to

John that Jesus, among all those who were being baptized by

John, was the Messiah. The arrival of the Spirit (not water

baptism) enabled John to become the prophetic witness to the

Messiah he was intended to be, “Behold, I send my messenger,

and he will prepare the way before me” (Mal. 3:1).

The coming of the Spirit was necessary30 for John to

fulfill his role as a witness, but more important was the

revelation that the Spirit apparently came to empower Jesus

as the Messiah. One aspect stands out in John that

contributes to the idea of empowerment. The Holy Spirit

“remains” on Jesus (John 1:32, 33). Burge thoroughly

expounds this aspect31 by pointing out the permanence this

30 The Old Testament is replete with predictions of the Spirit baptism of the Messiah in the New Testament. Isaiah 11:2, “The Spirit ofthe Lord shall rest upon Him.” Isaiah 42:1. “I will put My Spirit upon Him.” Burge points out that “other sources from the inter-testamental period show a marked interest in viewing the Spirit as having taken residence upon the great percentages of the OT. The Rabbis believed thatthe Holy Spirit and shekinah of God rested upon particular individuals and prophets” (Ibid. p. 55). The permanence of this event is predicted in Isaiah 11:2 by the LXX’s use of αναπαυειν with a perfective aspect (Qal perfect).

31 Ibid., pp. 54-56.

word (“remains”) brings to the discussion. He shows that

μενειν “denotes duration both of divine blessings (6:27) and

of their opposite, divine disfavor (3:36; 12:46).”32 As

μενειν shows the relationship between the Father and the Son

(10:30; 14:10-11), this word also reveals the permanent

unity between the Second and Third members of the Trinity

(and God’s permanent immanence in human affairs).

Accordingly, John 3:34 can be seen as underscoring this

permanent relationship between the Son and the Spirit: “for

God does not give the Spirit by measure,” indicating that

Jesus is the first one to have received the full measure of

the Spirit, Who will remain permanently (and now the Son of

God can give the Spirit to believers, i.e., baptize them in

[εν, not απο] the Spirit [Matt. 3:11]).

Since the Spirit baptism initiated the beginning of the

Lord’s miracles,33 what role did the Father and the Holy

Spirit play in the performance of those miracles? Did the

32 Ibid., p. 54.

33 We read of no miracles being done by Jesus prior to his baptism.

Father do those miracles through the Son? Did the Holy

Spirit actually come to empower Jesus as the Messiah? These

questions raise the issue of the theological “competition”

between two relationships: the relationship between the deity

and humanity of Jesus and the relationship between the other

two members of the Trinity and the humanity of Jesus. The

Scriptures are unclear about the personal Spirit of Jesus as

opposed to the influence of the Father or the Holy Spirit on

Jesus.

Whenever Jesus performed a miracle, many commentators

make the assumption that the deity of Jesus initiated and

carried out that miracle. Scripture reveals that the

performance of miracles was somewhat more complicated.

Throughout John, Jesus claimed that He Himself “does”

(ποιέω), “performs” (ergazomai), “completes” (τελειόω),

“shows” (δείκνυμι), and “makes manifest” (φανερόω) miracles.

All of His miracles appear to be the result of Jesus’

command, not as God’s answer to Jesus’ prayer.34

34 Except possibly for John 11:41-42.

However, Jesus also gives credit to the Father for His

works: “If I do not do the works of my Father . . .” (John

10:37); “the Father who dwells in Me does the works” (John

14:10); “The Son can do nothing on his own, but only what he

sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, the Son

does likewise” (5:19, 20). The works that follow this

statement indicate that the Father had entrusted these

miracles to the Son to complete them. Phrases that clearly

indicate the Father’s part in the Lord’s miracles: “in my

Father’s name” (10:25); “good works . . . from the Father”

(10:32). The Son is “in” the Father and the Father is “in”

the son (14:10-11), but the authority to cause these

miracles originates from the Father at the beginning of

John, “The Father loves the Son and has placed all things in

his hands” (John 3:35), and are to be completed toward the

end of the Gospel by the Son, “I glorified you on earth by

finishing the work that you gave me to do” (John 17:4).

Jesus reveals this relationship very clear in His prayer

when He raises Lazarus from the dead, “Father, I thank you

for having heard me. I knew that you always hear me, but I

have said this for the sake of the crowd standing here, so

that they may believe that you sent me” (11:41-42). Jesus

clearly affirms by this prayer what He stated in John 5:19,

that “the Son can do nothing on his own.” The Pharisees in

John 9 struggled with the Lord’s rejection of their

interpretation of the Law, some concluding that “This man is

not from God . . .” (John 9:16), while others countered in

9:33, that “If this man were not from God (παρά θεοΰ), He

could do nothing.” The Father’s indwelling presence in the

Son is a requirement enabling the Son to complete those

miracles.

What role did the Holy Spirit play in John’s Gospel in

the Lord’s miracles? John makes no direct connection between

the Holy Spirit and the Lord’s performance of His miracles.

However, as indicated above, the Holy Spirit will remain

with Jesus (John 1:32-33) throughout the Lord’s miracle

performances. In addition, Jesus promised that the disciples

would perform greater miracles after He ascended to the

Father (14:12). Since the Lord told the disciples that the

Holy Spirit would come to them after His departure (16:7-

11), Barry Blackburn35 proposes that the Holy Spirit will

actually empower the disciples to perform these “greater

works.” The Spirit will also proclaim Jesus through the

disciples’ witnessing: “when the Helper comes . . . He will

testify of me, and you also will bear witness” (15:26-27).

It is even possible to conclude that the Holy Spirit will

use the believers to convict the world of sin, righteousness

and judgment (16:8-11). As John concludes his gospel, Jesus

“gave” them the Holy Spirit and sent them into the world as

the Father had sent Jesus into the world (20:21-23). If all

of these factors support the thesis that the Holy Spirit is

playing an active part in the “greater works” promised by

Jesus, then Blackburn believes that the Holy Spirit also

took an active part in the performance of the miracles of

Jesus.36

35 Barry Blackburn, “The Miracles of Jesus Viewed from Above,” Stone-Campbell Journal, 15 no 1 Spr (2012): pp. 63-74.

36 Ibid., p. 70.

The Synoptics concur with this deduction.37 Luke

connects the “Holy Spirit” and “power” in the Lord’s life in

numerous passages.38 In Matthew 12:28, Jesus claims to be

casting out demons by the “Spirit of God,” and Mark warns

against blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in a context of

Jesus having the power to cast out demons. This leads to the

conclusion that the Holy Spirit played a major role in

performing the Lord’s miracles, beginning with the Lord’s

birth when the Holy Spirit conceived Jesus in Mary’s womb

(Luke 1:35) and concluding the Lord’s earthly life when the

Spirit raised Jesus from the dead (Rom. 1:4; 8:11).

One of the main purposes of the miracles was to bring

glory to the Father. When Lazarus got sick, Jesus revealed

the purpose of his sickness and the ensuing events: “for

37

Luke states the role of the Holy Spirit in the Lord’s miracles explicitly. The Devil’s temptation acknowledges that, after the Lord’s baptism, Jesus has the ability to perform such a miracle as turning a stone into bread. Since the Holy Spirit led Him into the desert, and remained with Him, it can be assumed that the Holy Spirit could have participated in such a miracle. The question never arises: What if Jesushad chosen to do such a miracle? Would the Holy Spirit have refused to co-operate?

38 Luke 1:17,35; 4:14; 24:49; Acts 1:8; 4:31.

God’s glory” (John 11:4). If the Holy Spirit is assisting in

the miracles, then the Holy Spirit is also bringing glory to

the Father. The Holy Spirit will apparently do this

primarily by assisting in the miracles and drawing attention

to the Son (John 16:13-15).

Then what part does the deity of Jesus play in the

performance of His miracles? Did the Father and the Holy

Spirit perform the miracles or simply assist Jesus in doing

them? Why would Jesus, as God, need help in doing miracles?

The Gospel of John does not give a definitive answer to

these questions. The Church Fathers struggled with this

dilemma as they attempted to formulate their theology of

Christology. The Early Church simply accepted the fact that

Jesus was divine and performed miracles. Arianism (c. ad

250-336) raised the question of the Lord’s origin, eternal

existence with the Father or the first of the Father’s

creation, and this questioned the ability of the created

Logos to perform miracles. Theodore of Mopsuestia

(Antiochene, c. ad 350-428) attempted to answer these

questions by combining (συναφεία) the Man (ό άνθρωπος) and

the Logos into the person (ὑπόστασις) of Christ. Theodore

postulated that each part remained “distinct in nature, but

united in honor and grace.”39 Apparently Theodore believed

that the “Man” performed the miracles, but only by the

divine power inherent within the Logos.40 Theodore’s

attempt, while praise-worthy, failed to answer the question

as to what part the Holy Spirit played in the performance of

the Lord’s miracles.

Augustine (Alexandrian, c. ad 354-430) emphasized the

permanent union of the two natures, human and divine, and

stated that only the human nature of Jesus required help

(empowerment) from the Holy Spirit in performing the

miracles: The Lord Jesus himself not only gave the Spirit as

God, but also received him as man.”41 Augustine made this

statement on the basis of the Communicatio Idiomatum 39 Rowan A. Greer, The Fear of Freedom: A study of Miracles in the Roman Imperial

Church (University Park: Pennsylvania State University, 1989), p. 27. Theodore’s Christology appears in Catechetical Orations 8.

40

Ibid., 26-28. Theodore’s sharp distinction between the two natures could lead to an internal conflict between them, but his focus is on an attempt to determine the source of the miracles, not to determine the exact distinctions between the two natures.

41 Augustine, De Trinitate 15.6.46.

(Communication of Idioms). This theological principle refers

to the incarnation and means that “the properties of the

Divine Word can be ascribed to the man Christ, and that the

properties of the man Christ can be predicated of the

Word.”42 In other words, Augustine is emphasizing the unity

of the two natures of Christ. Whatever can be said of either

nature of Christ can be said of the whole person of Christ.

Since Scripture teaches that the Holy Spirit took part in

the performance of the Lord’s miracles, then obviously the

Father willed this empowerment of the humanity of Jesus.

Even though the divine nature of Christ needed no

empowerment, the Father chose to use the human nature of

Jesus to perform miracles, and the human nature “needed”

help from the Holy Spirit.

Why did the Father choose this approach? Blackburn

believes that the Father is giving the Saints a “pedagogical

pattern for those who are in the process, by the power of

the Spirit, of being totally trans- formed into the perfect

42 Anthony Maas, "Communicatio Idiomatum," in The Catholic Encyclopedia,Vol. 4. (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908), http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04169a.htm (assessed May 22, 2014).

humanity of Christ, the perfect image of the Father.”43

Since the Holy Spirit unites the believer with Christ in

baptism and transforms the believer’s human nature into the

image of Christ, the participation of the Holy Spirit in the

performance of the Lord’s miracles serves as a teaching

point of what believers experience in the spiritual realm.

As the Lord’s human nature received the empowerment of the

Holy Spirit, so will believers receive “help” in uniting

with Jesus, in overcoming sin, and in rising from the dead.

“If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of

sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. But

if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells

in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also

give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who

dwells in you” (Romans 8:10, 11). This view provides one

possible theological answer to the doubt about the ability

of the divine nature of Christ to carry out the miracles

prescribed by the Father.

43 Blackburn, p. 72.

A second answer to the question as to why the Spirit

“helped” Jesus with miraculous deeds, centers on the

relationship between the Holy Spirit and the spirit world.

John does not relate the temptation of Jesus in the

wilderness, but John builds on the Synoptics’ version of the

relationship between the Holy Spirit and Jesus.

When Jesus was tempted by the Devil in the wilderness,

Luke states that “Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit . . . was

led around by the Spirit in the wilderness” during this time

of testing (4:1). The fact that Jesus was “full of the Holy

Spirit” (plh/rhß pneu/matoß aJgi÷ou) demonstrates the

position of the Holy Spirit in the Lord’s human life (while

not negating the Holy Spirit’s vague connection with the

Lord’s divine nature). The verb “led around” (h¡geto, NASB)

is indefinite as to the literal action of the Holy Spirit in

this event, but the preposition “in” (e˙n) describes

location, as opposed to “into” (ei˙ß), which describes

direction. The text does not state that the Holy Spirit led

Jesus “into” the desert, thus implying that Jesus was on His

own against the Devil, but that the Holy Spirit accompanied

him during the forty days and forty nights. The fact of this

accompaniment reveals the work of the Holy Spirit in

battling the spirit world. Jesus overcame the Devil’s

temptations through the “support” of the Holy Spirit.

Throughout His ministry, Jesus had the authority to cast out

demons and to command disease, but the Holy Spirit seems to

be engaging the enemy directly. Luke, not John, combines the

terms pneuvma and du/namiß, “in the power of the Spirit”

(e˙n thØv duna¿mei touv pneu/matoß, Luke 4:14), thus

demonstrating the Synoptics’ teaching that the miracles of

Jesus were “directly related to the presence of the Spirit.

As the essence of God is power, so endowment with power is

linked with the gift of the Spirit.”44

The Synoptics also veered away from presenting Jesus as

a miracle-worker. Miracles were only important as they drew

attention to the person of Jesus. First, the miracles all

focused on arousing repentance and faith (Matt. 11:20-21).

Burge notes that “well over half of the occurrences of

44 A. Richardson, The Miracle Stories of the Gospels (London: SCM, 1941), pp. 108-14.

pisteuein (and related forms) in the Synoptics occur in the

context of miracles.”45 And this repentance and faith had to

be focused on the person of Christ, not on the miracles.

Second, even though Jesus was divine, the miracles evidenced

that Jesus was the human in whom God resided! Logic informs

us that the divinity of Jesus could have performed all the

miracles without the help of the Father or the Holy Spirit,

but the Scriptures want humanity to grasp the fact that

Jesus is representing the Father. Jesus came to bring

believers to the Father. Jesus emphasized His relationship

to the Father more than His messiahship.

John’s access to the Synoptics allowed him to build on

their initial revelations. John does not separate the person

of Jesus from the works of Jesus. Miracle workers existed

during that time, but their miracles did not prove that they

were divine. John reveals the preexistence of the Son (1:1)

and the incarnation of the Son (1:14) before launching into

any descriptions of miracles performed by the Lord

(transforming water into wine in 2:1-11). John uses the

45 Burge, p. 66.

miracles as supporting evidence of the John’s claims at the

outset.

John emphasizes the role of the Holy Spirit in the life

of Jesus a bit differently than in the Synoptics. First,

John portrays the Holy Spirit as more than just an external

personal force helping Jesus. The Spirit is depicted as part

of Jesus in some way, almost like an attribute of Jesus’

very life. John uses the concept of “living water” to reveal

this new aspect of the relationship with the Spirit. Only

Jesus can give this water (John 4:10, 14), and this water

reside within Jesus. John 7:37-39 equates this living water

with Spirit (“If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and

drink . . .. From his innermost being will flow rivers of

living water”), and John 20:22 equates the Spirit with the

breath of Jesus. “And when He had said this, He breathed on

them and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’”

Second, as opposed to the Synoptics, John reveals fewer

miracles performed by the Lord. John even comments on this

fact at the end of his Gospel. “Therefore many other signs

Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples which

are not written this book; these have been written so that

you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God;

and that believing you may have life in His name” (20:30-

31). John emphasizes the “revelatory nature of the

miracle”46 more, thus elevating them into the realm of

“signs” (shmei√on). Jesus does not use the miracles to

simply display His power, but to say something about

Himself. As the Holy Spirit “helps” the Son perform the

miracles, John is communicating Christology through

Pneumatology. The Synoptics’ focus on the battle for the

Kingdom has shifted in John to the spiritual conflict of

truth versus falsehood. Either Jesus is the Son of God or He

is a deceiver and controlled by the Devil (“Do we not say

rightly that you . . . have a demon?” – John 8:48; “Truly,

truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am – John

8:58). The role of the Holy Spirit has shifted from

combatting the forces of evil through the Son of God to

displaying the miracles as signs of the identity of the

46 Burge, p. 72.

Person of Jesus. John emphasizes the authority (e˙xousi÷an)

of Jesus more than the Holy Spirit’s power (duna¿miß).

“Power” has been replaced in John by “sign.”

A third supporting answer as to why the Holy Spirit

“helped” Jesus perform miracles is displayed in the Economic

Trinity. Humans cannot comprehend God apart from the self-

revelation of God’s attributes as they have occurred in

history and been recorded in Scripture. The Immanent Trinity

attempts to describe the internal relationships between the

three members of the Trinity as theologians have pieced

together the tidbits of revelations that reveal God’s

numerous attributes. Theologians have attempted to

distinguish the different works of the three distinct

members of the Trinity. The Father creates, the Son saves,

the Spirit empowers. These distinctions have their value,

but Karl Rahner47 warns against separating God into packages

of activities, leaving the impression that the three members

of the Trinity have a bigger problem being one than three.

“the economic trinity is the ‘immanent’ trinity and the

47 20th-Century Catholic theologian.

‘immanent’ trinity is the ‘economic’ trinity.”48 Blackburn

points out that the closeness of the Immanent Trinity

dictates a “close correlation between the activities of the

divine persons in Jesus’ miracle-working and the

relationships of the divine persons as articulated in the

church’s classic doctrine of the immanent Trinity.”49 These

two theological descriptions of the Trinity meet in the

performance of the miracles of the Second Member of the

Trinity. As noted earlier in this paper, both the Father and

the Holy Spirit contribute to the performance of the Lord’s

miracles. Blackburn uses the overarching term perichoresis to

describe this relationship. Perichoresis (Greek) states that

each person in the Godhead is co-indwelling with mutual

interpenetration. Each person remains distinct while sharing

(penetrating and being penetrated) in the life of the other

two.50 This theological concept communicates the logic of

48

Karl Rahner, The Trinity (New York: Continuum, 2001), p. 22.49

Blackburn, p. 72.

50 John of Damascus, in Orthodox Faith, 1.14, does a marvelous job of describing the concept.

the active participation of all Three in the miracles,

without denying the divinity of Christ. The Father performs

through the Son by the Spirit. The divinity of Christ is no

longer in question. Each member of the Godhead takes part in

performing the miracles, so that theology can state that

“God” did them.

The question as to “how” each member of the Trinity

does His part in the miracles must be connected to the

Immanent Trinity. The Father and Son have distinct

relationships with One Another, as indicated by Their names.

The Holy Spirit, however, has no such name describing His

relationship to the Father and the Son. Augustine claimed

that the Holy Spirit “maintains that the Spirit is the bond

of love between the Father and the Son.”51 Augustine’s idea

may be incorrect, but no other prominent theologian has

developed a better idea to describe how each member of the

Trinity gets involved in the miracles of Jesus.

Conclusion

51 Augustine, De Trinitate 15.5.27.

The Father sent the Son into the world to save the

world by drawing all men to Himself. John proclaimed the

Deity and Humanity of Christ at the outset of his Gospel

(1:1; 14). The Son used miracles in order to draw attention

to His person and to His claim that He came from the Father.

“Jesus answered them, ‘I told you, and you do not believe.

The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness

of Me’” (10:25). Jesus did not attempt to spell out the

works of the Father. In His statement, “If I do not do the

works of My Father . . .”, Jesus challenged the people to

review the kind of works the Father does. Then, on that

basis, Jesus further challenged them to evaluate what Jesus

was doing and to compare His deeds with what they knew to be

true of the Father. An honest and sincere assessment of the

facts would lead them to the conclusion that Jesus had come

from the Father. If they discovered that Jesus was not doing

the works of the Father, Jesus agreed that they should

reject Him. “If I do not do the works of My Father, do not

believe Me; but if I do, though you do not believe Me,

believe the works, that you may know and believe that the

Father is in Me, and I in Him” (10:37-38).

The existence of the Father in the Son and the

existence of the Holy Spirit in the Son since the Lord’s

baptism allow all three members of the Trinity to

participate in the miracles Jesus performed during His

earthly life before the ascension. Although Col. 1:16

reveals that “All things were created through Him (Jesus)

and for Him (Jesus),” John 3:35 states that “The Father

loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand.”

Jesus makes the same claim when the disciples return from a

mission trip having cast out demons. “All things have been

handed over to me by my Father” (Luke 10:22; see Matt

11:27). The Father has actually entrusted the Son with

everything. The Son, however, does nothing for His own

glory, but for the Father’s glory. The Son only asks for

glory from the Father. Jesus prayed that the Father would

glorify the Son, because the Son had been glorifying the

Father during His entire earthly life. “Father, . . .

glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you” (John

17:1).

The Holy Spirit entered into a new relationship with

the Son at the Son’s baptism. The Father anointed the Son by

the Holy Spirit. This endowment of the Spirit facilitated

the Son in performing miracles. The Son used His authority

to initiate the miracles, while the Holy Spirit empowered

the Son throughout His earthly life to perform miracles

requested by the Father. The Deity of the Son is never

questioned. The Father chose this method for the purpose of

bringing maximum glory to the Trinity. It seems that

Augustine may be correct when he places the Holy Spirit

between the reciprocal relationship of the Father and Son

during the Son’s thirty-three years on earth. Jesus does

everything through the Holy Spirit: drives out demons and

thanks the Father (“In that hour Jesus rejoiced in the

Spirit and said, “I thank You, Father . . .” – Luke 10:21).

And the doctrine of the Deity of Jesus remains unaffected

(and safe) by the participation of the Father and the Holy

Spirit in the Lord’s miracles.

Bibliography

Augustine. De Trinitate. 15.6.46, n.d.Barth, G. Bornkamm, G., and H. J. Held. Tradition and

Interpretation in Matthew. Translated by P. Scott. London & Philadelphia: SCM & Westminister, 1963.

Blackburn, Barry. “The Miracles of Jesus Viewed from Above.”Stone-Campbell Journal 15, no. 1 Spg (2012).

Bruner, Frederick Dale. Matthew A Commentary: The Christbook Matthew 1-12. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2004.

Burge, Gary M. The Anointed Community: The Holy Spirit in the Johannine Tradition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.

Childs, Brevard S. Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

Dunn, James. Baptism in the Holy Spirit. London: SCM Press, 1970.Greer, Rowan A. The Fear of Freedom: A Study of Miracles in the Roman

Imperial Church. University Park: Pennsylvania State University, 1989.

Habermas, Gary R., and R. Douglas Geivett. In Defense Fo Miracles:A Comprehensive Case for God’s Action in History. Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997.

John of Damascus. Orthodox Faith. 1.14, n.d.Keener, Craig R. Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts.

Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011.Klink III, Edward W., and Darian R. Lockett. Understanding

Biblical Theology: A Comparison of Theory and Practice. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, a part of HarperCollins Publishing, 2012.

Koester, Craig R. The Word of Life: A Theology of John’s Gospel. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2008.

Köstenberger, Andreas J. A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009.

Lindbeck, George. The Nature of Doctrine. Louisville: WestminsterJohn Knox Press, 1984.

Maas, Anthony. “Communicatio Idiomatum.” In The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 4. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04169a.htm.

Marshall, I. H. The Gospel of Luke. NIGTC. Exeter & Grand Rapids: Paternoster & Eerdmans, 1978.

Ollenburger, Ben C. Old Testament Theology: Flowering and Future. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004.

Rahner, Karl. The Trinity. New York: Continuum, 2001.Richardson, A. The Miracle Stories of the Gospels. London: SCM, 1941.The Past, the Present and Future Biblical Theology. Philadelphia:

Westminster Press, 1979.Wright, N. T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press,

2003.