WONDERS.—The two terms ‘signs’ and ‘wonders’ are frequently joined in the OT, and this usage is carried over into the NT. The word τέρας, ‘wonder,’ never occurs in the NT except in connexion with σημεῖον, ‘sign’ (wh. see). The Heb. correlatives were מוֹפֵת and אוֹת. Jesus used the conjoined terms twice in His recorded sayings—once when He foretold that false prophets would come and ‘show great signs and wonders’ (Mark 13:22, Matthew 24:24), and once when He complained that the people demanded such things of Him before they would have faith in Him—‘Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will in no wise believe’ (John 4:48). The word τέρας occurs nowhere else in the Gospels. Elsewhere in the NT it is found once in a quotation from Joel to represent the marvels wrought by Jehovah in the heaven (Acts 2:19), and twelve times in reference to miracles wrought by Moses (Acts 7:36), by Jesus (Acts 2:22), by the man of sin (2 Thessalonians 2:9), and by the Apostles and early missionaries (Acts 2:43; Acts 4:30; Acts 5:12; Acts 6:8; Acts 14:3; Acts 15:12, Romans 15:19, 2 Corinthians 12:12, Hebrews 2:4). From the use of the word made by Jesus we might conclude that He did not esteem signs and wonders very highly, and that He freely granted that they were possible to false prophets as well as to Himself. In Origen (c. [Note: circa, about.] Celsum) we find practically the same attitude of thought. Origen is disposed to concede that signs and wonders are wrought among the heathen.

‘Now, in order to grant that there did exist a healing spirit named aescuIapius, who used to cure the bodies of men, I would say to those who are astonished at such an occurrence, that since the cure of bodies is a thing indifferent, and a matter within the reach not merely of the good, but also of the bad, you must show that they who practise healing are in no respect wicked’ (iii. 25 [Migne, vol. xi. col. 948]).

On the other hand, Celsus is willing to acknowledge that signs and wonders were wrought by Jesus, but he thinks the inference from these is unwarranted. They are to him no proof of Deity. He compares them to—

‘the feats performed by those who have been taught by Egyptians, who in the middle of the market-place, in return for a few obols, will impart the knowledge of their most venerated arts, and will expel demons from men, and dispel diseases, and invoke the souls of heroes, and exhibit expensive banquets and tables and dishes and dainties having no real existence, and who will put in motion, as if alive, what are not really living animals, but which have only the appearance of life. Then he asks: “Since, then, these persons can perform such feats, shall we of necessity conclude that they are sons of God, or must we admit that they are the proceedings of wicked men under the influence of an evil spirit?” ’ (i. 68).

It was easy for Origen to answer that Jesus never wrought His signs and wonders only for show, as magicians did, and that His constant aim was the reformation of character, as that of the magicians most evidently was not. Then he adds:

‘How should not He, who by the miracles which He did induced those who beheld the excellent results to undertake the reformation of their characters, manifest Himself not only to His genuine disciples, but also to others, as a pattern of most virtuous life, in order that His disciples might devote themselves to the work of instructing men in the will of God, and that the others, after being more fully instructed by His word and character than by His miracles as to how they were to direct their lives, might in all their conduct have a constant reference to the good pleasure of the universal God?’ (i. 68 [Migne, vol. xi. col. 788]).

Origen seems to have caught the very mind of the Master at this point. Jesus made use of signs and wonders to authenticate His mission, but His chief emphasis was always upon His ‘word and character’ rather than upon His miracles. Both Origen and Celsus, however, as these passages show, are willing to grant that signs and wonders were wrought by Jesus and by false prophets alike. Origen calls attention to the fact that Jesus, as indeed the entire NT, never calls miracles by the name τέρατα alone, but always joins this to some other term suggesting higher things (in Joan, xviii. 60 [Migne, vol. xiv. col. 521]). The τέρας was to the heathen merely a portent or prodigy, something unusual and extraordinary, something strange and abnormal, or, as Augustine put it, ‘quidquid arduum aut insolitum supra spem vel facultatem mirantis apparet,’ and more closely, ‘quaedam sunt quae solam faciunt admirationem’ (de Utilitate credendi, cap. xvi. [Migne, vol. xlii. col. 90]). Jesus could not be content to allow this name to stand alone for any of His miracles. It had to do merely with the outward effect or the temporary impression caused by the marvel, and some other term was added to show that the marvel was an exhibition of Divine power and a sign of a Divine presence among men. The wonder caught the attention and impressed the memory, and was subservient to the interests of the Kingdom in attracting men to listen and investigate, to hear and be saved. Jesus used it for an immediate individual benefit, but always with an eye to a further spiritual end. For the discussion of the nature and credibility of miracles in general, see art. Miracles.

D. A. Hayes.

Bibliography Information
Hastings, James. Entry for 'Wonders'. Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament. https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/hdn/w/wonders.html. 1906-1918.

Bible Dictionaries Wonders

Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament

Bible Dictionaries
Wonders