The bullet miracle is the explanation Jules Winnfield gives for surviving in Brett's apartment. A man who had been hiding comes out of the bathroom and shoots at him and Vincent Vega. Neither is hit. The two respond to the attack, but the immediate relief gives way to an argument that continues when they leave the building.
Jules sees a sign and believes he must change his life. Vincent accepts that they have been extraordinarily lucky, without seeing any obligation in it. The disagreement arises from a shared experience: both were exposed to the same danger and both are still alive. Yet each gives it a different meaning.
The scene makes it possible to speak of divine intervention as a reading of the character. The film leaves the cause of what happened open. That uncertainty sustains the interest of the episode: Jules will have to act in line with his new conviction without obtaining proof that would persuade his companion or the audience.
In Pulp Fiction (Quentin Tarantino, 1994), the missed bullets interrupt a situation the hitmen believed they controlled. Until then, they had set the questions and decided when to use violence. The appearance of the hidden man places them, for a few moments, in the position of those waiting to be shot.
The man who comes out of the bathroom
The film brings in the attacker when it returns to the Brett's apartment scene. The viewer discovers that there was someone else in the flat, outside the main conversation. That shift in information alters the memory of the visit: Jules and Vincent's control depended on a space they did not fully know.
The man comes out shooting. After checking that they are unharmed, the two hitmen return fire and kill him. The brief pause between the attack and the response makes their shock apparent. Jules looks at the bullet holes in the wall and begins to search for an explanation for the gap between the outcome he expected and what has just happened.
The position of that violent response matters. Jules fires before he formulates his religious interpretation; the episode does not show an instant conversion in which he has already given up killing. First he reacts as he has done up to then. Afterwards he begins to question the continuation of that behaviour.
Vincent directs part of his anger at Marvin for not warning them that the man was there. His question looks for a fault in the information available. Jules dwells on having survived. One still evaluates the job; the other feels that what happened requires him to rethink what he is doing there.
The holes in the wall show that the attack has had material consequences. By themselves, they do not explain why the bodies were left untouched. The scene also offers no visible trajectory for each projectile that would allow the event to be reconstructed as a ballistic test. The characters' surprise is clear; their explanation remains disputed.
Jules sees a sign; Vincent, a coincidence
For Jules Winnfield, the improbability of the outcome has a personal consequence. He understands survival as an opportunity that should not be wasted. His argument soon shifts from how the shots missed to the responsibility he attaches to being alive.
Vincent needs less to close the matter: a shooter can miss, and strange events happen too. He has no trouble admitting that they could have died. What he rejects is the idea that that possibility forces him to accept Jules' explanation. Both recognise the danger; they disagree about what follows from it.
The exchange sets two ways of interpreting an experience against each other, without turning the characters into mouthpieces for complete philosophical systems. Vincent does not set out a doctrine about God's non-existence. Jules does not develop a theology either. They speak from a recent shock and from the relationship of trust, with its usual friction, that they maintain as partners.
Vincent's insistence forces Jules to state more precisely what he wants to do. Although he may not persuade his interlocutor, he can decide to leave the job. That difference separates a belief from its application: being certain you have received a sign and acting accordingly are two different steps.
From this perspective, the scene allows a religious reading without requiring the viewer to share it. It also allows Jules to be understood as someone who finds, in an extreme experience, a reason to interrupt his routine. The two readings acknowledge an observable change; they interpret it differently.
The consequences of an explanation that remains unresolved
The discussion affects the pair of hitmen because Vincent Vega expects to continue within the same professional world. Jules' decision calls a shared habit into question. His resistance therefore has a practical element: accepting his friend's plan means accepting that their partnership may end.
The new conviction will have a concrete test in the restaurant. There, Jules has at his disposal the capacity for violence we already know and looks for another way out of the confrontation. This relationship between experience and conduct gives weight to the ending of Pulp Fiction: the apartment argument leaves a question that a later action makes it possible to assess.
The fact that the film gives that decision a prominent place does not turn survival into a reward reserved for a righteous person. Vincent has also dodged the bullets. Moreover, Jules arrives at the scene after killing. The reading of the miracle begins in those contradictions, which prevent us from simply equating protection with virtue.
It remains possible that Jules is wrong in explaining the attack and right in deciding to change. The film can hold both things because it shows the danger, records the argument, and allows a later response to be observed. The viewer has those facts on which to judge the journey, even if the ultimate cause of the missed shots remains unconfirmed.
Gavin Smith, in the introduction to his interview with Tarantino for Film Comment from July-August 1994, interpreted Jules' journey in terms of spiritual transformation and mercy. That formulation belongs to the critic. It should be distinguished from a statement by the director certifying a supernatural intervention.
The difference is useful when reading comments about the scene. An analysis can argue that the film treats Jules' faith seriously and, at the same time, recognise that the story provides no external voice to settle the disagreement. The character's conviction is expressed through his insistence and his decisions; the status of that conviction depends on how the whole is interpreted.
The way the episode is remembered also has an influence. The name miracle steers the conversation from the outset towards Jules' response. Describing the attack first and then identifying who offers each explanation makes it possible to recover the uncertainty that Vincent introduces and that remains in the scene.