Why Would Jesus Reject Giving a Sign

[ElCodeMonkey]

If Jesus was speaking against the doctrines of the Sadducees and Pharisees and uprooting what they understood as truth, is it not a perfectly reasonable request that he prove that he has the authority to denounce them? Why would Jesus say that a wicked and adulterous generation would require a sign when clearly it's a worthwhile request if any one of us walked into a church today, told the pastor he was wrong in his understanding, and claimed we were the son of God? Why would such a reasonable request be met with condemnation? And if "no sign would be given", then what's with all the healing and junk? Those aren't signs themselves?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by ElCodeMonkey]

What is easier, to say "your sins are forgiven" or "take up your mat and walk." So that you may know the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins..."

Sounds like a sign to me.

You just illustrated another one of many Bible contradictions.

[Tcg]

Why would such a reasonable request be met with condemnation?

Because Jesus expects unquestioned faith. Remember what he said to Thomas:

John 20:29b - "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Faith is good, but blind faith is better.

Questions, even perfectly reasonable ones, erode faith.

Pure blind faith as Jesus commended, avoids the unfortunate consequences of thinking.

[ElCodeMonkey]

Why would such a reasonable request be met with condemnation?

Because Jesus expects unquestioned faith. Remember what he said to Thomas:

John 20:29b - "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Faith is good, but blind faith is better.

Questions, even perfectly reasonable ones, erode faith.

Pure blind faith as Jesus commended, avoids the unfortunate consequences of thinking.

And yet he still proved himself to Thomas and did not condemn him nor call him evil. I dare say that the reason he condemned the Pharisees was not because he wanted blind faith since one would not know what to have blind faith in. Why not blindly follow me instead? No, his reason was because only a wicked and adulterous generation would reject the message he preached simply because it didn't have authority. Which means, of course, that the message he preached was something moral in nature, not religious dogma in nature. A non-religious dogma message of morality would require no authority for a good and caring people since they should all be plenty willing to accept such a thing without a command from on high.

Jesus: Love people! That's what God wants!
Bad People: Pah! Prove God Wants that! Screw you!
Good People: Yeah, okay. Sounds reasonable.

[Overcomer]

ElCodeMonkey wrote:

Why would Jesus say that a wicked and adulterous generation would require a sign when clearly it's a worthwhile request if any one of us walked into a church today, told the pastor he was wrong in his understanding, and claimed we were the son of God? Why would such a reasonable request be met with condemnation? And if "no sign would be given", then what's with all the healing and junk? Those aren't signs themselves?

But it wasn't a reasonable request and it wasn't coming from reasonable people. Jesus has been performing miracles witnessed by the Pharisees and Sadducees; yet they remain hard-hearted and refuse to recognize him for who he is. They spend all their time laying traps for him, planning how to get rid of him, speaking out against him. Given all of that, there is no onus on Jesus to provide yet another miracle. Why would he? They have rejected all the others as evidence that he is the Messiah. What would be different this time?

It's much like the atheist of today who says he stood in his backyard and asked God to give him a sign that he exists and then says to his friends that God didn't come through so obviously God isn't real. There is evidence of God all around if they would seriously and sincerely consider it. God knows who has a heart for him and who doesn't. And he doesn't have to jump through hoops that atheists hold up for him because, quite frankly, all the signs in the world won't convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced.

By the same token, Jesus didn't have to do anything according to the wishes of the people who reviled him and who, having already seen all kinds of miracles, rejected him. That's the whole point of the passage. That's why he calls them a wicked and adulterous generation. The word translated as 'generation' can refer to a group of the same kind of people. Jesus recognized their dishonesty, that it wasn't about giving them something to help them believe at all.

You can really see that when you look at those verses in context. The Pharisees have accused him of doing supernatural things in the power of Satan. That's who he is dealing with -- a perverse bunch of hypocrites. Why play their game when he knows all they want to do is discredit him?

So Jesus doesn't give them a sign right then and there. However, he does tell them that he will give them the sign of Jonah at some point. He is referring to his crucifixion and resurrection. That is the greatest sign he could give and, yet, some will refuse to acknowledge even that huge a miracle because of their hardness of heart, their pride and their hate.

See here for a detailed study of the passage:

https://bible.org/seriespage/19-sign-jo ... ew-1238-45

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 5 by Overcomer]

And yet, Jesus said that "no" sign will be given. None. All except the sign of Jonah. Not that Jonah died and was resurrected or anything, but we can always interpret however we want. He went under water and came out, that's pretty similar to being flayed on a cross, dying, and resurrecting. We'll go with that.

You seem to be confusing Pharisees with atheists as well. They already believed in a God. They believed they knew the right God and this Jesus character comes in and claims they're all wrong. They can believe everything around them is evidence of God all they want without it pointing to Jesus as his conduit. So it seems like a legitimate request to seek a sign to prove them wrong with actual authority.

The only reason it's not necessary is because they must not realize that Satan and his demons represent all that is evil and God all that is good. Therefore healing people and presenting a message of love is something they should not be opposed to and not need a sign for. Of course it's from God. That's who and what God is. Love. Goodness. It's Satan's very nature to be evil to the point where he can't possibly uplift good and help people for the mere purpose of tricking others into following him. Following him is the essence of following evil. If you're not following evil, you're not following him. You can't trick people into following evil by shaming evil and enticing them with good. It simply doesn't make sense. This is why a sign wasn't necessary.

If you go into any church today and preach that Jesus only wants us to seek what is good and the Bible has it wrong for claiming sacrifice was necessary, they would reject you in a heartbeat and potentially only believe if you could show a sign. Even if you did show a sign, however, they'd probably claim it's from the devil trying to trick them into "renouncing Jesus" even though it's the very message Jesus preached. Sounds familiar... We're right back to the religion of the Pharisees. God said "love," religious zealots changed it to "you must do and believe x, y, z," and then someone came and said "nuh uh, God said love, not this crap" and then the religious retort, "who gives you authority to say that??" Then they call you a demon for wanting love instead of religion.

Notably, Jesus foresaw all this and claimed this is exactly what would happen. He said the Kingdom was like dough where someone worked leaven into it. He said to beware that leaven of the Pharisees. He said the wheat and the weeds would grow together. He planted good seed, but an enemy went and sowed junk among it. He said the dog returns to its vomit and a pig to the mud. He is very right. It all came right back and now people want to know by what authority we claim God wants love and never desired blood sacrifice. And in the end, he separates the sheep from the goats based upon DEEDS of clothing him or not, feeding him or not, helping prisoners, etc rather than based upon one's religious beliefs of blood sacrifice.

It really couldn't be any more clear in my eyes. It still surprises me greatly that this is not obvious to people. But, as you say, people believe what they want to .

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 6 by ElCodeMonkey]

I disagree with evil being unable to do good. This is how the greatest evils have been done by disguising itself as good. Even Christ agrees "If your son ask for fish, who hands him a snake?" "If you being evil are good to your sons..."

Historically, communism, socialism, naziism were all marketed as good. As was slavery, denying women the vote or property rights...etc, etc

[William]

[Replying to post 7 by brianbbs67]

I disagree with evil being unable to do good.

Just to pop in a note on that, and since I have had recent discussions on the subject so it's fresh in my frontal, how does your claim dovetail with Jesus being attributed with saying 'no man is good' yet here you are proclaiming evil can be?

Don't get me wrong here. I understand pretense, but apparently there is no line drawn which can be blurred, regardless. It seems to me then that good and evil as perceived, are much the much in that 'who can really tell?', which in itself makes any argument from either side proclaiming, pretty much null and void.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 8 by William]

Ah, I did not say evil was good. I said evil does good to further itself. Hitler brought his country out of economic despair and created the first interstate highways. Which sound or are good for his people, but his purpose was to further his evil plan not actually help people.

[William]

[Replying to post 9 by brianbbs67]

Ah, I did not say evil was good. I said evil does good to further itself.

And what I said it that apparently no man is good, so how can one say that 'evil does good', see? That is the observation I am making.