KINGS AND KINGDOMS
	Bible Reading: 1 Kings 17:17-24
V. 22: So the LORD listened to Elijah's voice, and the boy's life returned to him, and he lived.(HCSB)

Human beings seem to be superstitious by nature, and tend to give themselves more credit for either good or evil than they are entitled to.

-----To return to my rant above, scientists keep finding new reasons why we must be responsible for global warming. Remember when the culprit was our use of fluorocarbons and the supposedly increasing ozone hole? Since that hasn't been found to be sufficient, we are now blaming CO₂, a gas that we exhale routinely and that is essential for the rainforest to survive. Rainforests make oxygen (O₂), but they do so by chemically converting carbon dioxyde (CO₂) into oxygen. Take away enough CO₂, and the trees will die. You can verify this on your own with an experiment, assuming you are sufficiently heartless to want to kill a plant. Wrap a plant in cellophane and watch it choke to death, not because of oxygen deprivation, but because of carbon dioxyde of an accumulation of oxygen at the cost of sufficient carbon dioxyde.

---But I find that once again I have digressed somewhat. Let me return, if I may, to my main point.

As I was saying, human beings seem to be superstitious by nature, and tend to give themselves far more credit for good or evil than they are entitled to. So, the son of the widow of Zarepath and died, and she immediately reasoned that his illness and death were caused by the fact that God had sent Elijah in order to punish her for her sins. Nonsense. Given the rest of the story, it is just possible that God allowed this bad event to happen in order to accredit Elijah, but we're best off not drawing any conclusion as to why God allowed it to occur.

Nevertheless, Elijah was seriously unhappy, both the with boy's death and with bearing the brunt of his hostess's interpretation. He asked for the boy's body, carried it upstairs, and cried out desperately to the Lord to restore his life. Now pay attention to how what follows is described: The Lord listened to Elijah, and the boy's life returned to him. In other words, it was God who resurrected the boy, not Elijah.

Of course, you knew that already. Really? Are you sure that the credit in the story goes to God and not to Elijah? A lot of people might say so, but in the depths of their minds wonder about the technique that Elijah may have used to bring about this miracle. Christians may try to figure out what distinguished Elijah so that God could use him for a miracle, and many non-Christians are hopelessly confused on the difference between miracles and magic. I have had the opportunity to write a number of articles on miracles, and I'm hoping that I will get the opportunity to write one more in which I can elaborate on this distinction.

If I may, please let me narrate my bibliography on miracles. Way back in 1980-something I checked with Gary Habermas if he might be interested in co-editing with me an anthology of articles on miracles. Gary was all in favor, and I inquired on the idea with a publisher, who was not. In fact, that publisher was sufficiently discouraging that I dropped the idea altogether. Then in the early nineties, Gary chatted with Doug Geivett, and they revived the idea. Let me assure you that they went the extra mile and a half to make sure that I was okay with the idea of their taking over what could have been construed as my idea, though--really--how original is the idea of an anthology on miracles anyway? I was thoroughly happy to let them take a shot at it. They turned to a different publisher, who was excited about the proposal, and the result was the book, In Defense of Miracles (InterVarsity Press, 1997), which has been quite successful. In contains my article, "Recognizing a Miracle," in which I make the point that atheists and other confirmed skeptics are hardly in a position to decide which event may legitimately be construed as a miracle since, if you don't believe in God, your world view pretty much closes you off from accepting any event as miracle. I had also already made that point as a part of my discussion on miracles in Reasonable Faith (B&H, 1993), converted into its paperback version, No Doubt About It (B&H, 1997). It's been an incredible amount of fun reading the skeptics' reactions because for some reason they feel that, if they cannot be convinced of the facticity of a miracle (which constitutionally they cannot), nobody is allowed to call an event a miracle. What piffle!

Since then I have been allowed to publish two more articles on miracles. In "Miracles" in To Everyone an Answer: A Case for the Christian World View edited by Francis J. Beckwith , William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, (InterVarsity, 2004), I don't say anything novel, though it turned out to be a cute article. Then, in "Where is the Problem? Miracles and their Omniscient Critics" Areopagus Journal 8/2(March/April 2008), I make the point that, even if skeptics express a theoretical openness to the possibility of miracles, the conditions they set are such that a miracle could never truly be said to occur. In other words, they really already know that miracles cannot happen. But to be sure of that point, you really have to be omniscient. In the course of writing that article, it occurred to me that many skeptics are confused on the difference between a miracle and magic. In short, the distinction is that a miracle is a free act performed by God, whereas magic is a technique by which a human being manipulates spiritual forces, so that the result depends on on whatever power the person may have and to whatever degree the person has mastered the required method with sufficient proficiency. Magic is not a part of Christianity.

If you look over various discussions held on the internet concerning religion or the truth of Christianity, you are sure to run into someone saying something clever like, "I challenge any Christian who really believes in God to produce a miracle right now (such as jumping off a tall building without harm), and I will believe in God." Interestingly, that kind of silly comment is pretty similar to the devil's temptation of Jesus in the desert, and Jesus repudiated it immediately. In any case, it betrays an utter confusion between miracles and magic. What the skeptic is asking for is that the Christian perform a magic stunt. (Of course, some either presumptuous or deceptive [allegedly] Christians high-profile preaches are oblivious of that distinction as well, and, thus, don't much help the Christian cause.) God does miracles. Believers may ask God to do a miracle, but they neither can nor should do magic.

Look again at that picture of Elijah agonizing over the corpse of that boy. He shows no confidence. I cannot imagine any of that moronic smirk or the slimy piety on his face, which you see on the face of televised faith-healers. There is nothing there but desperation. God brought the boy back to life. He responded to Elijah, but he did so because he wanted to, not because Elijah had found the lever to move his arm.

Could you use a miracle in your life right now? I would love one. If God wishes to do so, he may send you one, and maybe even to June and me. I promise I will be happy for you, just as I am happy for Elijah, the widow, and her son. But most of the time God's objective is for us to manifest trust and reliance in him without any special effects. In the long run, perhaps, the greater miracle is for us to be satisfied with whatever hardship he sends our way than for our faith to depend on miracles, let alone magic. Nobody said this was going to be easy. A word to the skeptic: It is highly unlikely that God will fulfill your conditions, but don't be surprised if he performs that much greater miracle of changing your heart. That is my prayer for you.