Jesus' Best and Most Important Miracle
The Church says that Jesus used miracles to prove that he was speaking the truth
about what God had told him to say.
The Bible says he fed the 5000+ crowd with a few loaves and fish which he
multiplied. But the Bible also says he fed them because he felt terrible about
them being hungry. So was it a sign or not? The Christians say it was both a
sign and an act of compassion. It could have been a sign as well but there is
still a problem. He did the miracle to feed the people as well as a sign. This
contradicts the view that God will not do miracles for any reason other than
signs because any other reason implies he makes mistakes in the way he has
organised the world. The Church teaches that since God makes all things and
holds them in existence and is almighty that even those who defy his will to sin
can’t get out of his plan. This is the doctrine of divine providence and
sovereignty. So if Jesus did the miracle to feed the people then providence
failed. The Church will say that it was providence that worked the miracle. But
still Jesus refused to feed them like God feeds everybody without a miracle. He
ended up having to change nature to satisfy his desire to feed them.
In Matthew 12:39 Jesus states that the only sign he will give that faithless
generation is the sign of Jonah meaning that as Jonah was three days and three
nights in the fish so Jesus would be three days and three nights in the grave
and rise again. How does that fit the gospel claim that Jesus did a more public
miracle than the resurrection which was only seen by a few? The Christians
resort to saying that all miracles barring the resurrection were not done as
signs but because Jesus was gripped by the desire to alleviate terrible
suffering. But the Bible says nothing happens without God's consent so there can
be no such thing as God having to do something miraculous if people are
suffering. God can cure the sickness without sending Jesus to do it and why does
he wait until Jesus says so? He wouldn't if people need intervention. Some say
that from Matthew 12 on Jesus was saying there would be no more signs meaning
the things he did before that were in fact signs. Matthew does not hint that
this interpretation is correct or even possible and the gospels speak of signs
right up to when Jesus was nailed to the cross.
Jesus said his miracle of his rising from the dead was his supreme sign and his
supreme miracle and the miracle that along with the cross brings salvation to
sinners. Jesus’ food miracle then if it happened was a better miracle than the
resurrection. At least people saw the miracle happening and had more to go on
than resurrection apparitions and they were more numerous than the handful that
saw the visions. The miracle then would therefore cast doubt on the divine
origin of the resurrection. It would mean that Satan was behind it in the hope
of making God look a fool. Incidentally, Jesus’ exorcisms then would not be
credible signs of divine action in the world.