Miracles

VERA SHEVZOV

Orthodox thinkers from Late Antiquity to modern times have understood miracles as actions or events that manifest or point to the presence of God. Orthodox Christians have associated miracles not only with indi­vidual experiences, but also with experi­ences of entire communities and even nations. Miracles are associated with healings, historical events, visions, dreams, and foresight, and with such phenomena as inexplicable displays of myrrh or tears on icons. Throughout history, Orthodox pas­tors and spiritual guides have drawn on accounts of miracles for pedagogical pur­poses. Such accounts provided lessons concerning vices and virtues along with les­sons concerning “right faith.” In addition to the realm of lived Orthodoxy, where accounts of miracles have often resulted in the special veneration of certain icons and the veneration of saints and their relics, miracles have also figured in the Orthodox theological and philosophical consider­ations of history, science and nature, and anthropology. Reports of miracles have also periodically begged the question of author­ity in the church (who in the church is it that finds and declares them miraculous?). Although miracles may be integral to its worldview, Orthodox Christianity never­theless is deeply nuanced in its approach to them.

In part, the Orthodox understanding of miracles is rooted in the complex view of miracles reflected in the New Testament. On the one hand, patristic authors such as Origen of Alexandria (d. 254) and St. John Chrysostom (d. 407) maintained that Jesus’ miracles played a significant role in the estab­lishment of the Christian faith. Signs, acts of power, and works testified to the power of God manifested in and through Christ. Accordingly, Orthodox writers maintained, miracles accompanied his words in order to confirm his identity for those who were unable to recognize his power and authority through his words alone. In this sense, mir­acles were a form of divine condescension. Following the death of Jesus, in this view, the apostles performed numerous miracles in Jesus’ name as a way further to cultivate the Christian faith. As Origen wrote in his mid- 3rd century treatise Against Celsus 1.46, had it not been for miracles, people would not have been persuaded to accept the new teachings. On the other hand, patristic authors also pointed to the more negative aspects of miracles in the gospel texts. Particularly objectionable was the pursuit of, and demand for, miracles as a condition for faith (Mt. 16.4; Jn. 6.30–31) or as a curious spectacle (Lk. 23.8). Even the Devil tempted Jesus to perform a miracle (Mt. 4.1–11; Lk. 4.1–13). Finally, according to Jesus’ testimony, not every “wondrous sign” was from God (Mt. 24.24–25; Acts 8.9–13); they could even be detrimental to believers by distracting or turning them from the path to salvation.

Because of their recognition of the possi­bility of miracles (especially in light of the core teachings on the incarnation and res­urrection), both patristic and modern Orthodox writers have affirmed the reality of miracles. They have considered miracles

as attestations to divine providence and as affirmations of God’s active presence in the world. The faithful often consider them as wondrous signs (thaumata) meant to be discerned and read. “Wonders” of faith in this sense are not necessarily the great con­tradictions of natural laws that are so often the focus of western theological reflection on miracles, but are often small, personal, signs: understood as a message from God, and which, accordingly, cause wonderment (thauma) in the heart; a term which in the New Testament accompanies moments of divine epiphany and grace. Modern Orthodox writers, especially beginning in the 19th century, sought to defend the cred­ibility and reasonableness of miracles in light of modernity’s challenges. While maintaining a critical approach that recog­nized the possible interplay of superstition, they nonetheless distinguished between superstitious attitudes and the phenome­non of miracles. In so doing, as a rule they argued against the modern understanding of the “causal closure principle.” Instead, they argued for a reality that existed beyond nature and for an understanding of the world that was more permeable to that real­ity. The priest theologian Sergius Bulgakov, for instance, encouraged viewing the world as a dynamic organism rather than a static mechanism. Miracles in such a view do not per se violate the natural order; but neither are they to be considered as “random” actions or events.

Despite its modern apology for miracles, Orthodox Christianity nevertheless does not emphasize miracles as in any way essen­tial to the Christian life. Salvation does not depend on them; they are not foregone signs of sanctity. According to patristic and modern Orthodox authors, the virtu­ous life consists not in the working of miracles, but in “the beauty of one’s life” (St. John Cassian, Conferences 2.7, 9). As

St. John Chrysostom pointed out, Christ did not direct his disciples to “perform mir­acles,” but to feed his sheep (Homilies on St. Matthew 46). Similarly, St. John Cassian maintained that discipleship involves pri­marily love and not signs and miracles. Patristic and modern Orthodox writers also maintain that Christ’s teachings are paramount to the Christian life, while a preoccupation with miracles is a sign of a lower state of spiritual life. The Orthodox monastic tradition in particular discourages and even warns against engaging the mirac­ulous, seeing it as a potential source of pride, delusion, and downfall.

Because of the potential spiritual pitfalls associated with miracles, Orthodox pastors and spiritual guides have traditionally called for spiritual sobriety in the approach to miracles. Miracles, they maintain, de­mand discernment and the cultivation of what St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, the well-known 19th-century bishop and spiri­tual guide, termed “spiritual reason” in order to “test the spirits” and distinguish between “true” and “false” miracles. Such discernment, according to the Orthodox tradition, is profoundly more beneficial on the path toward salvation than miracles.

Historically, there has been no systematic institutional effort across the Orthodox churches to regulate and officially ratify miracles, comparable to the way this is done in modern Roman Catholic practice. Many of Orthodoxy’s best-known miracle­working icons, for instance, were never offi­cially ratified as such but became specially revered on the basis of a “tradition of faith.” Nevertheless, periodically, certain efforts were made to regulate and add institutional weight to the discernment of “true” and “false” miracles on the local ecclesiastical level. In 18th- and 19th-century Russia, for instance, guided by the Spiritual Regulations of Peter the Great, the Russian Holy Synod was charged with investigating reported miracles and ascertaining their veracity – a process which often caused tensions among the faithful. More recently, in 1999, faced with a wave of reported miracles, the Orthodox Church in Russia established a commission, composed predominantly of scientists, whose task is to document, investigate, and analyze such reports. The commission’s current co-chairman is Pavel Florensky, a geologist, academician, and grandson of the Orthodox priest, theo­logian, and martyr, Fr. Pavel Florensky.

SEE ALSO: Florensky, Pavel Alexandrovich (1882–1937); Hagiography; Icons; Myrobletes Saints; Relics; Russia, Patriarchal Orthodox Church of; St. Ignatius Brianchaninov (1807–1867)

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS

Bulgakov, S. (1932) O chudesakh evangel’skikh. Paris: YMCA Press.

den Boeft, J. (2004) “Miracles Recalling the Apostolic Age,” in A. Hilhorst (ed.) Apostolic Age in Patristic Thought. Boston: Brill, pp. 51–62. Glagolev, S. (1893) “Chudo i nauka,” Bogoslovskii vestnik (June): 477–514.

Ward, B. (1999) “Monks and Miracle,” in J. C. Cavadini (ed.) Miracles in Jewish and Christian Antiquity. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, pp. 127–37.