Masthead Image

Per Caritatem

Non intratur in veritatem nisi per caritatem. St. Augustine



Mar

10

2008

Part IV: Hobbes’ Philosophically and Politically Motivated Biblical Exegesis

By Cynthia R. Nielsen

March 10, 2008

Lastly, we have Hobbes discussion of miracles.  In this section, as in the previous ones, Hobbes begins by defining his terms and then interacts with various biblical texts.  As Hobbes explains, miracles arouse wonder and admiration in humans for two reasons: (1) they are exceedingly rare and unusual events, and (2) they are thought to be done by the immediate activity of God.  However, if we were able to come to a natural explanation of what was thought to be a miracle, we would of course be forced to abandon our original belief.  This tendency to mistakenly call something a miracle is due to our ignorance of natural causes and is in fact what Hobbes claims to be the case the majority of the time.  To support his claim, Hobbes cites examples of how the ancients, who were ignorant of the causes of solar and lunar eclipses, interpreted such occurrences as supernatural works of the gods. After engaging a few Old and New Testament examples in which miracles are discussed (e.g., Moses’ miracles performed in Egypt, and Christ’s inability to perform miracles in his own country), Hobbes concludes that the purpose of miracles is to bring about or confirm belief in God’s elect (Lev., ch. 37, ¶5-6).  This examination of the nature of miracles and their use, then leads Hobbes to the following definition of a miracle:  “A Miracle is a work of God (besides his operation by the way of nature, ordained in the creation), done for the making manifest to his elect the mission of an extraordinary minister for their salvation” (Lev., ch. 37, ¶7).[1]  This definition implies that a miracle is an effect of God’s immediate activity and not an effect that comes about through the secondary causality of the prophet (e.g., as a result of the prophet’s virtue/power).  Hobbes goes on to say that if it were the case that the miracle was effected through power given the prophet by God (that is, through secondary causality), then we could not call this a miracle, as it would have been produced naturally and not by God’s immediate causality.  As Curley observes in footnote 15, this conclusion nullifies the miracles performed by Moses and the prophets since the power by which they performed their miracles was given by God (Lev., ch. 37, ¶10).[2]  One then wonders which, if any, miracles according to the biblical account remain standing.[3]  Likewise, does not this naturalization of miracles not point in the direction of a something more akin to a deistic conception of God, which of course, harmonizes well with Hobbes’ mechanistic view of the world, as well as his continual insistence that God does not providentially interact with the world?

Given what we have seen thus far, it seems fair to conclude that Hobbes does not engage Scripture in a purely objective way (whatever that is). Rather, as I have attempted to highlight throughout this essay, Hobbes’ philosophical and political convictions drive his hermeneutical endeavors.  For Hobbes, the traditional understanding of prophecy, spiritual beings, and miracles serve to reinforce God’s providential workings and presence with his people and thus undermine the authority of an earthly sovereign.  Moreover, the doctrine of providence, according to Hobbes, results in a kind of intellectual and perhaps even moral laziness wherein people depend too much on God.  However, in the end it is not clear how Hobbes’ own position can escape at least to some degree the same kind of intellectual and moral errors of which he accuses traditional orthodoxy given the political requirement that individuals must give absolute obedience to the sovereign who stands as God’s representative until the Kingdom of God on earth is restored at Christ’s Second Coming. 

Notes


[1] Italics and other font emphases are in the original. 

[2] As Curley explains, “[i]f all works done by a power given by God are natural, and hence, not miracles (as the English version implies), this seems to deny the status of miracles to the works performed by Moses and the prophets” (Lev., ch. 37, n. 15). 

[3] Perhaps only God’s creation ex nihilo would count as a miracle.  Given that I have not completed my reading of Leviathan, I hold this conclusion loosely. 


Leave a comment