Creation Miracles

[artybloke]

1. The coin was created from "nothing"
2. The coin was created from fish spit.
3. The fish had been waiting months for vomit up the coin it had picked up on a lark and Jesus just had a knack for spotting sickly fish appearing heavier than they should have been.
4. The story really means that a generous guy named Fishman happened to have a few extra denarii and be in the right place at the right time.

And, of course, option 5:

Sleight of hand. (My Grandad could do such tricks with magically appearing coins.)

As Jesus was rather fond of provoking the religious fundamentalists of his day, I rather like that explanation.

 

[busterdog]

Although I think the text does permit a providential miracle, I will not argue that this is the case, or even a possibility. I am quite comfortable with the interpretation that the loaves were indeed multiplied. What I am not comfortable with is making this a salient point of the story.

I think it may be worthwhile asking why the text is silent on the methodology of the miracle. Perhaps to tell us that the methodology is not what is important. What is important is that the disciples (or one boy with a lunch) offered what they had. And all were fed.

Maybe the few loaves blest by Jesus were all that was available. Maybe it was all the food that was visibly offered. Maybe a merchant with a plentiful supply did happen by. Or maybe an angel brought down bread from heaven. I don't think it really matters which was the case.

What matters is that bread was shared in faith and all were fed.

In principle, I think this thinking is very sound. I would be a bit cautious with the text, but then you know what I think about the surface text. One should be as open to "ex nihilo" as simply good timing, except where God tells you what He is doing.

Quite often, the mechanism of the miracle is not apparent. It is almost as if it is better hidden at times.

In the question of Elijah and the widow at Zarephath, I rather suspect that the miracle works better with the top on the flour tin and the cubboard closed.

1Ki 17:14 "For thus says the LORD God of Israel: 'The bin of flour shall not be used up, nor shall the jar of oil run dry, until the day the LORD sends rain on the earth.'"

What that accomplishes is to exclude the fallen human mind, which is prone to disbelief.

Of what value was the water with which Namaan was washed? God certainly didn't need it water to work a miracle. The water was cover for the miracle, it was something for the mind of Namaan (if not to deal with this anti-Israeli nationalism) while the Holy Spirit did the real work.

 

[mindlight]

Creation ex nihilo means creation out of nothing. In which case, I don't think the example of Jesus feeding the multitudes can be considered creation ex nihilo because he had starting materials (fish and bread) to work with. I think the term you're looking for would be creation de novo.

Thats assuming the existing fishes and bread were what Jesus used to bring the rest of the fish and bread into existence.

Interestingly, the Genesis creation account doesn't tell of creation ex nihilo, either. The water was already there before God began the task of shaping the earth (Gen 1:2). Some might find this surprising, but in light of all the other ANE creation stories floating around at the time (like Enuma Elish), it's not so unexpected -- they all feature the presence of an initial watery abyss.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." That sounds like the ex nihilo part to me. That he chose to shape clay into people and that water was a major surface feature of the primeval condition of the earth before the forming and filling of the planet is a follow on from the initial event of ex nihilo creation. I take it you do not believe that water was the initial material from which stars and planets were shaped so we can take that view only so far anyway. But yes its possible that did not simply create fish or wheat initially out of nothing but not clear that he did not.

This is just one piece of evidence that leads me to believe the Genesis creation account is not record of actual historical events (although the first Hebrews may have believed it as such). Jesus feeding the multitudes, however, was witnessed by many people and does not share its motifs with other ANE mythologies. It is clearly an historical account, and as such, a very different type of literature than that presented in Genesis. Therefore, I don't think we can use the former to elucidate creation presented in the latter.

We agree the feeding of the multitudes were historical and witnessed and not over the literal historical nature of key parts of the genesis account.
I think the nature of the miracles points to the creative nature of God. I will expound this as I respond to the other posts

 

[mindlight]

????

God is always something, not nothing. Isnt your view suggesting strict conditions of "nothing" that can't exist. For example, there are four possibilities for the coin in the fish's mouth:

1. The coin was created from "nothing"
2. The coin was created from fish spit.
3. The fish had been waiting months for vomit up the coin it had picked up on a lark and Jesus just had a knack for spotting sickly fish appearing heavier than they should have been.
4. The story really means that a generous guy named Fishman happened to have a few extra denarii and be in the right place at the right time.

Good analogy and it is a similar question. Where did the coin come from + where did the fish and bread come from?

1 & 2 are indistinguishable as "ex nihilo" creation.

2) Could potentially indicate some kind of ability to convert energy into whatever matter but 1) is definitely pure ex nihilo

The distinction between 1/2 and 3/4 is really the issue. Relative to a perfectly natural explanation, like Mr. Fishman, the silver coin is more or less created out of thin air.

Yes no silver in a fish naturally and then suddenly a silver coin. It looks ex nihilo

The OP is for creation "for all intents and purposes" out of nothing, isnt it?

What the OP then gets us to is the distinction between:

1. Things being created "out of nothing" by JEsus speaking in the Gospels, and for which the only evidence we have is the Scripture, since a bottle of Perrier sitting for 100 years and never becoming wine is not evidence of anything.

2. Evidence from (allegedly) very, very old rock suggesting that God was not speaking the same way at the time of creation, though he certainly could have had he wanted to.

Ex Nihilo is part of it. I am also genuinely intrigued with Jesus "creation miracles" and interested in anything people have to say about the feeding of the multitude. But yes there are implications for the creationist TE debate. If Jesus was observed by thousands as creating fish and bread as if out of nothing then it affirms earlier creation miracles e.g. Moses Mannah and the Genesis account. If God can create instantaneously creatures that look like and taste like mature fish then what does it mean to comment on an old universe. Suddenly time spans evaporate and observations of processes seem irrelevant. God seems able to pluck the end products of "billions of years of evolution" out of thin air with a click of his fingers.

 

[mindlight]

No, because I'm not suggesting the Lord created the universe out of Himself.

Of course he didn't

Why are you suddenly talking about the coin in the fish's mouth? mindlight and I were referring specifically to Jesus feeding the multitudes, which I don't think would technically satisfy the conditions of creation ex nihilo (literally "out of nothing"). I'm not saying Jesus could not create ex nihilo. I'm saying this specific example doesn't show that he did. And again, nor does Genesis 1.

I think there is an analogy here. The fish and bread were not there in sufficient quantities to explain the vast amounts left over, the full bellies of so many thousands of people who had been 3 days with Jesus and who would have exhausted their own supplies by then. The fish and the bread just appear and there is no explanation given for this but the scientific observation is that they were not there and then they were. so where did they come from. A creative act of Christ is the only explanation given and given what we know about Jesus that points to God as Creator also. Creation can be instantaneous and out of thin air.

Maybe you think I'm just playing semantics.

Yes you are

Regardless, my point still stands that the narrative delivered in Mark and that delivered in Genesis are very different types of literature and one cannot be used the gauge the historical value of the other. We're talking about comparing apples and oranges.

Although the early Hebrews did interpret the account in genesis as a literal historical work and those within a few generations of the gospel accounts would also have done. So the difference comes from the scientific views you have come to hold and to apply to the reading of the scriptures.

 

[mindlight]

I am not sure if any of these examples is indisputably creation out of nothing. As Mallon mentions, the feeding of the crowds began with something. Also the texts never say specifically where the leftovers came from.
As for the large fish catches, it doesn't say the fish were created then and there. Perhaps they were simply attracted to the nets.

There was nothing and then there was creation.

There were a small number of fishes and loaves and then there were enough to feed thousands. The only thing missing is how God/Jesus did it.

Thousands of witnesses to an act of creation by the person who did it in the first place and it says nothing about the original event?

So without disputing the possibility of creation out of nothing as the actual cause, I don't think other possible scenarios can be ruled out.

In this case I agree we cannot say it categorically - some kind of energy- matter conversion ability might also be possible. The ability to create fish out of air may not be ex nihilo but it is still instantaneous and defies the view that it takes billions of years of evolution to make such things happen.

Absolutely there must be continuity as well as discontinuity. Otherwise there would be no place for us in the New Earth. Nor would Paul's words about creation in Romans 8 make any sense. Why would this creation be yearning for the revealing of the sons of God or expecting release from futility or experiencing birth pangs if it to be completely replaced?

Agreed continuity with discontinuity. We get rid of the curses and take on the blessings and upgrades!

John Polkinghorne, the British physicist turned theologian, suggests the difference between this cosmos and the new cosmos is that this cosmos was indeed created ex nihilo, from nothing. But the one to come will be created ex vetere, out of the old (present) one.

Creation 2.0 - definitely something to look forward to.

This would also concord with Jesus' parable about the wheat and the tares and other eschatalogical discourses. In the parable, he speaks of the weeds being gathered first and taken to be burned. And then "the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father." The key is not the removal of the righteous to someplace else, but the removal of the wicked from the world.

And the wrong in us is also left behind..

As an aside, this suggests the Left Behind folk have it all wrong. They envision the good being taken away and the unrighteous left behind to endure tribulation. But Jesus' words in Matthew 24 say only "one will be taken and one will be left" without suggesting which is which. If it is the "weeds" that are taken, being left behind is a blessing.

Interesting reading of the parable - I'd have to think about that one.

That is a time-honored allegorical interpretation that goes back to the Church Fathers.

True

 

[mindlight]

It is not a question of the laws for conservation of matter/energy, it is a question of ex nihilo creation. The multiplication of the loaves does show Jesus power over the laws for conservation of matter/energy. But it is not ex nihilo creation it is ex panem et piscis. If Jesus had caused the coin to pop into existence in the fish's mouth that would be ex nihilo I suppose, except the bible does not suggest that this is what happened. I am pretty sure it is not the only coin lost in the Sea of Galilee. Ex nihilo creation is amazing but all God's works are wonderful.

You do not know that Jesus created the other fish and loaves - ex panem et pisces. But you do know from the text that he created enough food instantaneously for the multitudes, that thousands of people witnessed this and tasted this food. Whether ex nihilo or as a result of complete mastery of the laws of physics this is a creation miracle that echoes the original event of creation, from the only person who can be a witness of those events.

 

[mindlight]

Let's look at the text:

He told the crowd to sit down on the ground. When he had taken the seven loaves and given thanks, he broke them and gave them to his disciples to set before the people, and they did so. They had a few small fish as well; he gave thanks for them also and told the disciples to distribute them.

The people ate and were satisfied. Afterward the disciples picked up seven basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over.
(Mark 8:6-8 NIV)

The paragraph division I have given is artificial but the point I am making will be valid even without it. The text says simply that "the people ate". Ate what? Maybe Jesus multiplied the bread and fish, and everyone ate that:

He told the crowd to sit down on the ground. When he had taken the seven loaves and given thanks, he broke them and gave them to his disciples to set before the people, and they did so. They had a few small fish as well; he gave thanks for them also and told the disciples to distribute them.
Suddenly the molecules of the air spontaneously rearranged themselves at Jesus' behest and bread and fish began to materialize even as people distributed the paltry remains of the original food amongst themselves.
The people ate and were satisfied. Afterward the disciples picked up seven basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over.

Maybe, instead, we are missing a verse 7-1/2 that tells us:

He told the crowd to sit down on the ground. When he had taken the seven loaves and given thanks, he broke them and gave them to his disciples to set before the people, and they did so. They had a few small fish as well; he gave thanks for them also and told the disciples to distribute them.
Suddenly a large truck carrying twenty thousand watermelons careened off the road and spilt its contents all over the floor in front of the waiting crowd. Jesus praised God for that, too, and -
The people ate and were satisfied. Afterward the disciples picked up seven basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over.

Maybe verse 7-1/2 reads:

He told the crowd to sit down on the ground. When he had taken the seven loaves and given thanks, he broke them and gave them to his disciples to set before the people, and they did so. They had a few small fish as well; he gave thanks for them also and told the disciples to distribute them.
The crowd marveled at his faith and generosity. Some had money that they used to buy more food; some shared what they had; others thanked the people around for their graciousness; and all thanked God that He had provided them with what they had to give others.
The people ate and were satisfied. Afterward the disciples picked up seven basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over.

The point is that we simply can't distinguish Scripturally between any of these possibilities (or any other). Any story that fulfills the Scriptural requirements that the crowd went home full, praising God, and there was enough left over for the disciples to retrieve, is credible, if not certain. I personally lean towards the first, of course, for aesthetic reasons; but I would not be terribly disappointed to get to heaven only to find out that Jesus was really a lot more practical than my mysticism would desire.

And who might you be to tell God that He is not allowed to prove Himself unless through miracle? Human generosity is also a creation of God, after all; and it is far more impressive to me than any suspension of natural laws you could conceive.

No they are not all equally plausible as the full text indicates:

8:1 In those days there was another large crowd with nothing to eat. So Jesus called his disciples and said to them, 8:2 “I have compassion on the crowd, because they have already been here with me three days, and they have nothing to eat. 8:3 If I send them home hungry, they will faint on the way, and some of them have come from a great distance.” 8:4 His disciples answered him, “Where can someone get enough bread in this desolate place to satisfy these people?” 8:5 He asked them, “How many loaves do you have?” They replied, “Seven.” 8:6 Then he directed the crowd to sit down on the ground. After he took the seven loaves and gave thanks, he broke them and began giving them to the disciples to serve. So they served the crowd. 8:7 They also had a few small fish. After giving thanks for these, he told them to serve these as well. 8:8 Everyone ate and was satisfied, and they picked up the broken pieces left over, seven baskets full. 8:9 There were about four thousand who ate. Then he dismissed them. 8:10 Immediately he got into a boat with his disciples and went to the district of Dalmanutha.

The crowd were hungry and had nothing to eat. There were a few fishes and loaves. BUT Jesus fed everybody and the leftovers exceeded the amount they had in the first place.

 

[mindlight]

You are still doing it, the very fact you need to put brackets around "providentially" shows how much you think it is a second rate mode of God's work. Worse, you see it as a rival and a threat to God's supernatural works and in an attempt to defend the supernatural miracles you exclude God from operating through natural processes too.

Did you even read which miracle I described as providential? It was the coin in the fishes mouth. Why do you think God had to miraculously create a coin in a fish's mouth when the fish could pick it up from the bottom of the lake?

But if you read what I wrote, I said Jesus showed miraculous power over the laws of nature when he fed the 5,000. First there were just a couple of loaves and fish, then there was enough to feed thousands. I don't know how Jesus did it, but I know it was a pretty amazing miracle. But why is God's power over nature threatened by the fact he can also work through natural processes too. If God lead a small fish to swallow a coin, then some bait, you think it somehow denies his ability to multiple bread and fish on another occasions? It doesn't make sense busterdog.

Why do creationists think ex nihilo creation is the only way God can operate miraculously? If Jesus began with five loaves and two fish, then it is not ex nihilo. He did not start with nothing. He did things to make that bread and fish into enough to feed 5,000 which no natural process can accomplish, but it wasn't ex nihilo creation because he did not start from nihil nothing. He started from bread and fish.

Somehow ex nihilo creation has become a buzz phrase among creationists and every time God does anything creative or the bible uses the word bara they think it has to be ex nihilo. They think they are defending creation this way. Instead they end up denying Gods power to operate in any other way.

Whether God initially created fish out of nothing or out of the matter he had already created out of nothing his mastery of nature in the initial creation event was undisputable.

In the feeding of the miracles we get more information about how God as Creator works - for instance - INSTANTANEOUSLY and out of love. It remains unclear whether the fish were created out nothing or as a result of some kind of energy matter conversion which is beyond the power of all humanity alive today. Either way Jesus affirms a Creator who is the undisputed master of Creation by creating fish in a desolate place for starving worshippers. In doing so he refreshes the Moses - Mannah story in their mind reminding them of the promises made to them and bringing those promises alive with his provision. Unlike Moses he does these things off his own authority.

 

[busterdog]

Whether God initially created fish out of nothing or out of the matter he had already created out of nothing his mastery of nature in the initial creation event was undisputable.

In the feeding of the miracles we get more information about God as Creator works - for instance - INSTANTANEOUSLY and out of love. It remains unclear whether the fish were created out nothing or as a result of some kind of energy matter conversion which is beyond the power of all humanity alive today. Either way Jesus affirms a Creator who is the undisputed master of Creation by creating fish in a desolate place for starving worshippers. In doing so he refreshes the Moses - Mannah story in their mind reminding them of the promises made to them and bringing those promises alive with his provision. Unlike Moses he does these things off his own authority.

The interesting counterpoint to the story of the manna, which has a number of implausible speculative theories of a "providential" fulfillment, is the story of the quail. Apparently large numbers of quail do migrate north from Africa through this area and collapse from near exhaustion in the area in question. The providential fulfillment is no less amazing, since it requires God's omniscience to make it work. So, both kinds of miracles are clearly in use.

 

[mindlight]

I don't know if you inadvertently put in both the words "sign" and "miracle" or not, but it does provide another thought. The Greek word we normally translate "miracle" is 'semeion' which means "sign". ("Miracle" in turn comes from Latin and is derived from a Latin term that means "look!" It implies some sort of thing/event worth looking at, a wonder, a marvel of some sort.)

So, "sign" of what? Sign of God's power, God's presence, God's care. Sign that God acts for his people.

The Moses - Mannah in the desert analogy is there in the background. But also an affirmation that Jesus is not just one greater than Moses because of the things he can do on his own authority but he is also the Creator Himself. So look eat the bread and see who I am. He who feeds on me will never die.

What 'semeion' and its Hebrew and Latin equivalents do not inherently suggest is "not natural" or "beyond natural". IOW, the providential recruiting of natural forces to accomplish God's will can be just as much a sign of God's power, presence and care as any bending or overwhelming of the laws of nature. Just as much a "miracle" in biblical terms, though today we tend to restrict "miracle" to the latter meaning.

And for that matter, it provides no strong argument against the creation of bread on the spot either.

And quite interestingly, Jesus does NOT say "when I multiplied the five loaves" but "when I brake the five loaves.." exactly matching the text describing the feeding of the crowd.

It is certainly clear that this was a 'semeion'. But does "sign" mean what "miracle" means in a science-imbued culture? Perhaps we should place less emphasis on the methodology of signs and more on the purpose of signs.

Why not sign as a literal historical event that echoes previous ones and which points to the very nature of who Jesus is. The sign connects us to the Creator Himself, the Loving Father who fed israel in the desert and the one who feeds those who listen to his words.

In the case of another sign, Jesus asked the skeptical Pharisees "Which is easier, to forgive sins or to say to this paralytic 'Take up your bed and walk'?"

In parallel fashion we can ask "Which is the greater miracle: the multiplication of loaves or the multiplication of generosity?"

They were in a desolate place, had been so three days - THEY HAD NOTHING TO EAT. The multiplication of loaves is the only miracle here. To say they suddenly started sharing pack lunches is to distract from the glory of Christ in this case, to distort the text and to miss the point of what was going on with this miracle.

Of course he could, and that probably is the prevailing TE view. TEs have no more objection to supernatural miracles than you do to providential miracles. But we are perhaps a little less inclined to think we know for certain which is which.

It is not always clear but it is in this case.

 

[mindlight]

The interesting counterpoint to the story of the manna, which has a number of implausible speculative theories of a "providential" fulfillment, is the story of the quail. Apparently large numbers of quail do migrate north from Africa through this area and collapse from near exhaustion in the area in question. The providential fulfillment is no less amazing, since it requires God's omniscience to make it work. So, both kinds of miracles are clearly in use.

I am happy to accept that providence and instantaneous miracles can work together and mannah and quail combine the two types. I just do not believe the feeding of the multitudes is an example of providence as normally understood

 

[shernren]

No they are not all equally plausible as the full text indicates:

8:1 In those days there was another large crowd with nothing to eat. So Jesus called his disciples and said to them, 8:2 “I have compassion on the crowd, because they have already been here with me three days, and they have nothing to eat. 8:3 If I send them home hungry, they will faint on the way, and some of them have come from a great distance.” 8:4 His disciples answered him, “Where can someone get enough bread in this desolate place to satisfy these people?” 8:5 He asked them, “How many loaves do you have?” They replied, “Seven.” 8:6 Then he directed the crowd to sit down on the ground. After he took the seven loaves and gave thanks, he broke them and began giving them to the disciples to serve. So they served the crowd. 8:7 They also had a few small fish. After giving thanks for these, he told them to serve these as well. 8:8 Everyone ate and was satisfied, and they picked up the broken pieces left over, seven baskets full. 8:9 There were about four thousand who ate. Then he dismissed them. 8:10 Immediately he got into a boat with his disciples and went to the district of Dalmanutha.

The crowd were hungry and had nothing to eat. There were a few fishes and loaves. BUT Jesus fed everybody and the leftovers exceeded the amount they had in the first place.

Ehh, that's quite right! I didn't notice that. I stand corrected. (And busterdog, you would find your audience much more receptive to clear textual quotations than to vague "because the text says so!" assertions followed by insulting attempts at trivialization of the other position.)

Having said that, I was quite interested in busterdog's idea of the "sign miracle". I know that idea pops up quite often in John, but I'm a lot more familiar with Luke and the term immediately brought to mind a famous verse:

Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord. This will be a sign (semeion) to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger. [Luke 2:11-12, NIV; emphasis added]

Hardly miraculous. The only hint of miracle in this is the baby himself - but the shepherds were not told to verify that he was born of a virgin (which would have been quite unverifiable by that point, anyhow). Instead the sign was that there would be a baby wrapped in cloths lying in a manger; presumably they were pointed to the inn. Now there have been plenty of babies wrapped in cloths, and surely at least a few have been laid to rest in mangers; where is the supernatural? This sign is almost homely; and yet every Christmas pageant has honored it for nearly two millenia.

Indeed, what did Jesus Himself say about signs in Luke?

As the crowds increased, Jesus said, "This is a wicked generation. It asks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah. For as Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites, so also will the Son of Man be to this generation. [Luke 11:29-30, NIV - emphases added]

The sign of Jonah is, of course, the crucifixion and the miracle of the resurrection. But take this literally - it should mean that Jesus would never perform any miracle other than His last, for these people! My. That throws a spanner into things. (The best way to reconcile this with the way John is saturated with the idea of "signs", to me, is to do a little exegetical kung-fu in the style of Romans 9 and say that not all alive at the time were "this wicked generation". But it is still messy nevertheless.)

 

[busterdog]

I am happy to accept that providence and instantaneous miracles can work together and mannah and quail combine the two types. I just do not believe the feeding of the multitudes is an example of providence as normally understood

Absolutely correct.

 

[busterdog]

Providential miracles in action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3Xiy5aK3AU