DIRECT EVIDENCE.
With "direct evidence," theologians mean such evidence as is supplied by the miracles of the Lord and his servants.
It is true that miracles are often appealed to as evidence of the divine mission of Christ. Nicodemus says: "No man can do these miracles that thou doest except God be with him" (John iii, 2). Christ Himself supports this view. "I have greater witness than that of John; for the work which the Father has given me to finish, the same works that I do bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me" (John v, 36). "Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me, or else believe me for the very works' sake" (John xiv, 11). Also: "But that ye may know that the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins (He says to the sick of palsy), I say unto thee, 'Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way unto thine house'" (Mark ii, 10, 11). Here, clearly, miracles are furnished as evidence of Christ's divine mission.
But it must be remembered that the performance of miracles is not always a proof of divine authority. The Egyptian magicians worked several miracles, it seems, in the sight of Pharaoh, thereby turning his heart away from God. The disciples of the Pharisees at the time of Christ also performed miracles. They charged Christ with the crime of being connected with the powers of darkness, and that He by such aid cast out demons; to which charge Christ with holy indignation, replies: "If I cast out demons with the aid of Beelzebub, by whom do your children cast out demons?" So that miracles were by no means something which Christ claimed as his exclusive prerogative. It has also been clearly foretold that anti-Christ should claim miraculous powers and thereby deceive many. "His coming is after the workings of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders" (II Thess. ii, 9). "And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men and deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast" (Rev. xiii, 13, 14). From these passages it is clear that caution is needed in accepting this kind of evidence. Miracles may be evidence of the presence of God or the presence of anti-Christ.
Nor is the performance of miracles always necessary to prove divine authority. A man may be sent from God in order to fulfill a very important mission without having to prove this by miracles. Thus John the Baptist had a very important mission. He came to "prepare the way" for the appearance of Christ, yet it is not known that he proved his mission by miracles.
It is true that Christ and His Apostles after Him worked many striking miracles, even the raising of the dead, but these miracles were, after all, not so frequent as has sometimes been imagined. Those men of God did not touch everything with supernatural power, healing every sick person they saw, raising every dead one, changing the common day occurrences of life into scenes matching the stories of the "Arabian Nights." Not at all. Their miracles were comparatively scarce; they were exceptional occurrences. Thus when Paul was incarcerated in Rome, the cold prison walls forming but a poor shelter for his body during the winter, and his resources probably being exhausted, he asked Timothy kindly to bring with him the cloak which Paul had forgotten at Troas, at the house of one of the brethren, called Carpus. (II Tim., iv, 13). The passage is as prosaic as it could possibly be, and has nothing supernatural about it. Still more, in the same chapter we hear Paul diligently plead with Timothy to come to Rome to him, for he was now alone. All except Luke had forsaken him, and among other misfortunes was this—that he had had to leave Trophimus sick at Miletum. "Erastus abode at Corinth, but Trophimus have I left at Miletum, sick" (II Tim. iv, 20). Sick? Why did not the great Apostle cure him instead of leaving him sick? If the Apostles had been such miracle-makers as modern fancy has represented them to be, an occurrence of this nature would have been impossible. But this is not the only one recorded. Timothy, one of Paul's converts and fellow laborers, is always spoken of in terms of high praise, and he is a noble instance of eminent gifts and grace in one young in years. This favorite of the apostle was sick, however, and in his letter Paul therefor exhorts him to be careful about his health: "Drink no longer water but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities" (I Tim. v, 23). Let those who have overestimated the frequency of miracles at the time of the first Christian churches, consider this passage well, and they will be likely to see their mistake. Here was a prominent man of the church, himself possessing great spiritual gifts, constantly suffering from "infirmities." Here is the great "Apostle of the Gentiles," whose power always was great, advising that prominent man to use a little medicine. Why did he not promise him a miracle? Why? That we do not know, but this we do know, that miracles were never by God strewn round, "plenty as black berries."
Anyone who will study the miracles of our Lord and his apostles, will find that they were always performed for the glory of God, and conveyed a lesson necessary and appropriate. Although individuals were thereby benefited, yet this was not the only or ultimate aim. Christ, for instance, heals with a touch a man whom the law had pronounced unclean, and whom no Jew would touch. He shows by His miracles that he is the Lord over disease, over demons, over physical nature, over brute creatures, in order that we may have confidence in Him in all things. We see him forgiving sins, answering prayers, direct (Mat. ix, 20-22), intercessory (23-26), united (27-31), and even unuttered (32-33). The same characteristics may be observed in the miracles of the apostles. They were never performed for selfish purposes, nor for the gratification of curiosity, never for the sake of show. The epistles explain that miraculous gifts, including prophecy, were given to confirm the truth of the Gospel, promote its rapid dissemination, and edify the churches.
Such miracles, then, are from God, and may be relied upon as evidence of the truth of those revelations which they are intended to prove.
Two questions now become appropriate in our investigation: Did miraculous manifestations follow the message of Joseph the Prophet, and, if so, were these miraculous manifestations of such a nature as to warrant the conclusion that he had his power from God? Let us see.