Trusting in miracles to alleviate our suffering sets us up for disappointment with God when we’re not delivered. Instead, we pray, cast our cares on the Lord, and consider it all joy when we suffer because we know that through our hardships, our faith is refined and matured. When God does not give us a miracle, that doesn’t mean he let us down. When we embrace suffering for what it can produce in us, we mature, grow in steadfastness, and persevere well, which brings glory to God.

Can it be that seeking regular miracles in our lives isn’t what God intends for us?
First, be clear on this: I’m convinced God can and does perform miracles today. I think we should pray for healing for the sick and ask God to help us in dramatic ways. And sometimes he does. But should Christians expect to see miracles on a regular basis? I don’t think so, and I want to tell you why.
What is God’s purpose in doing miracles? Two things stand out in Scripture.
First, God used miracles to validate his messengers and his message. In the Bible, there are three prominent clusters of miracles that accompany God’s prominent messengers: Moses, Elijah, and Jesus. Their miracles got people to pay attention to their message.
Second, God used miracles as an act of mercy to meet deep human need. This was especially evident in Jesus’ ministry when he was moved with compassion to heal, but Moses and Elijah also worked miracles for this reason, too.
God cares about our concerns and sometimes intervenes miraculously to rescue us from our troubles. It’s why we’re told to pray for one another.
Though Jesus performed many miracles, however, he had something interesting to say about those who craved after signs and wonders:
An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (Matt. 12:39–40)
Jesus said his resurrection from the dead would be the chief miracle validating his ministry. The resurrection was Jesus’ greatest miracle because of what it accomplished. Jesus confirmed his message of salvation by rising from the dead.
Read More
Related Posts:

Not only was rest given for the enjoyment of Lord Adam of Eden: the ultimate beneficial reason for the giving of the Sabbath to the human race, was so that when the Word took Flesh, Jesus, Himself, might sanctify this day of rest. From before the world was made, the Logos fully intended to use the Sabbath Day to bring blessing to the world. 

Over the past two weeks, given Christ’s statement in the Gospels, I’ve been mulling over the question of how the Sabbath of Creation connects with Christ as Son.
The Sabbath was Made by The Son.
We are plainly told in Genesis that, having concluded Creation work,  God set Day Seven apart. At this particular junction in divine revelation, Moses is not concerned with the Persons of the Godhead: if explicit mention of the Father, Son and Spirit of Yahweh is held back to the Baptism of Christ, we know from New Testament references that, as The Pre-Incarnate Logos, God the Son was The Agent of Creation who also gave the Sabbath Ordinance.
In all of the external works of God (or opera ad extra), all Three Glorious Persons of the Godhead are active: we must clearly state that if the Father ordained the Sabbath by the Spirit, the Seventh Day of Rest, equally, is the Son’s gift to mankind. Or, at risk of stating the matter in an anachronistic fashion, the origin of the Sabbath can be traced to the now-Enfleshed Word. His sanctifying that day by setting it apart as special could have been intensive (most sacred), factitive (made sacred), or declarative (marked sacred), or perhaps all three. Whatever the precise nuance involved in demarcation of the Seventh Day, let us be very clear that having made that Day, the Sabbath belongs to Him. It is not an exaggeration to call it the Sabbath of the Son.
The Sabbath was Made for The Son.
Not only was rest given for the enjoyment of Lord Adam of Eden: the ultimate beneficial reason for the giving of the Sabbath to the human race, was so that when the Word took Flesh, Jesus, Himself, might sanctify this day of rest. From before the world was made, the Logos fully intended to use the Sabbath Day to bring blessing to the world. Not only did Christ hallow this day of worship growing up, but for 3 three years of Sabbaths, this time was set apart, from the rest of His hectic weeks, for some of His most notable words and works of public ministry among Jews.
Read More
Related Posts:

When husbands and wives are intended, the context makes it clear, but there is nothing in the context of 1 Tim. 2:9–15 to indicate that husbands and wives are in view. Paul could have easily added words like “your wives” or “your husbands” to clarify that wives and husbands are intended, but we find nothing of the kind. The references to men and women in 1 Tim. 2:9–15 are quite general, which is why the majority of commentators agree that men and women are the subject of the admonition, not husbands and wives per se.

Editor’s Note: The following article is Part II of a response to Christianity Today’s April 2024 cover story on gender and appears in the Spring 2024 issue of Eikon. Parts I and III can be read here and here.
Gordon Hugenberger rightly reminds us in his essay in Christianity Today of the many areas where complementarians and egalitarians agree. In addition, we have all benefited from his excellent scholarship over the years. Still, I would dissent from his claim that 1 Tim. 2:9­–15 speaks of the relationship between husbands and wives instead of men and women generally. If we accept Hugenberger’s interpretation, the text doesn’t prohibit women from serving as pastors or from preaching the word when the church gathers for worship. Still, his reading of the text is quite unconvincing. There are decisive reasons for thinking that Paul speaks of men and women generally, not husbands and wives specifically, in 1 Tim. 2:9–15.
Hugenberger’s reading is flawed because the context in 1 Timothy 2 is clearly public worship, not the individual relationship between husbands and wives. When we read 1 Timothy as a whole, the focus in the letter is the public assembly of the church, the right teaching of the word and the refutation of false teachers. Paul often speaks of teaching in the letter, and it invariably refers to what occurs when the church gathers together (1 Tim. 1:3, 10; 4:1, 6, 11, 13, 16; 5:17; 6:1, 2, 3). A quick look at the letter verifies that we have a public setting. False teachers are threatening the church (e.g., 1 Tim. 1:3–7), and Timothy is charged to resist their influence (e.g., 1 Tim. 1:18–20), by proclaiming the gospel (1 Tim. 1:12–17; 2:3–7). First Timothy 2:8–15 is followed by a command to appoint overseers and deacons in the church (1 Tim. 3:1–13), and both are offices that relate to public ministry in the church. The Pauline instructions are designed to make the church a bulwark against the false teaching (1 Tim. 3:14–15). Paul immediately returns to the threat of false teaching and the need to resist it (1 Tim. 4). The role of elders is addressed again in 1 Tim. 5:17–25, and the letter ends as Paul emphasizes the importance of resisting false teaching and pursuing what is good and right and true (1 Timothy 6). The idea, then, that Paul addresses husbands and wives in chapter 2 doesn’t fit the aim and purpose of the letter. Hugenberger individualizes and privatizes a text that addresses the church which is gathered for worship and instruction.
Hugenberger claims that the terms used for men and women in the New Testament typically refer to husbands and wives, and thus, in his judgment the same is true in 1 Tim. 2:9–15. That sounds like an impressive argument, but when we examine the matter more closely Hugenberger’s reading fails.
Read More
Related Posts: