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?

[JehovahsWitness]

QUESTION: Did Jesus refuse to perform any miracles?

Jesus is reported as having performed numerous miracles throughout his ministry. It seems clear he understood people's need to see evidence of his Messianic claims, indeed he is spoke of on occasion of recognizing that his miracles provided undeniable proof of his authority (compare Matthew 9:6). That said however on one occasion, it is reported that he refused to offer miraculouse evidence of his God given authority. Why did he refuse? And did he later change his mind?

QUESTION: WHY did Jesus refuse to perform miracles?

A close look at the narrative indicated why on occassions he refused a direct request for a miracle,, namely that it was coming, not as a sincere request for help for an unfortunate, but rather as a challenge to perform on demand, coming from the religious leaders and those that shared their attitude.

MATTHEW 12:38

Then as an answer to him, some of the scribes and the Pharisees said:Teacher, we want to see a sign[*] from you. In reply he said to them: wicked and adulterous generation keeps on seeking a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jonah the prophet. [/color]

* or miraculous proof.

• Jesus judged these individuals as "wicked and adulterous", knowing that they had ulterior motives and were not seeking truth but rather to mislead people from truth. Jesus was evidently not making an absolute refusal to perform any more miracles at all, since he would indeed miraculously help many thousands of people after this point in time (summer of 31CE) , but rather it was a rejection of unreasonable requests from a specific type of person.

WHY WAS THE REQUEST FOR A SIGN TOTALLY UNREASONABLE

• The request that prompted Jesus stinging rebuke came from people that had personally witnessed or had ample eyewitness testimony of his previous miracles. If we follow the gospel chronology, Jesus had already cured dozens, if not hundreds, of people in Galillee, including at least one leper, and a paraplegic, he had even raised a man from dead, all events that would have become common knowledge in the region and beyond.
  
  Further those same individuals that were requesting for a sign had acknowledged that Jesus had indeed already provided signs. Mark reports "Also, the scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying: He has Beelzebub, and he expels the demons by means of the ruler of the demons" so at the very least they acknowledged Jesus had supernatural powers and had used them. Indeed it is ironic that it was in response to such a recent miracle (curing of a deaf-mute) that the religious leaders banded together to pressure for a sign. In short the religious leaders, having rejected the numerous extraordinary miracles that they had seen and/or acknowledged were requesting some ultimate, superior sign above and beyond raising the dead, curing all manner of ailments and demonstrating his authority over the demons. Does that sound reasonable?

THE ULTIMATE MIRACLE

• Since his opponents then, were not requesting an "ordinary" miracle, and since when Jesus did perform miracles they attributed them, not to God but to the Devil, Jesus rightly rebuked them and refused the request for more on that occasion. At the same time, Jesus indicated there would indeed be one last ultimate demonstration of his divine origins: the sign of Jonah, alluding to his own death and resurrection.

CONCLUSION: When Jesus refused to perform a miracle it was not a blanket refusal to provide evidence he had divine backing , rather it was an affirmation that he would do no more than what he had been doing up to this point, perform miracles only for those he judges as worthy for the purpose of helping them build genuine faith.

Further Reading: Are Miracles Really Possible? Three Common Objections
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2012562

Do "extraordinary Claims" always require extraordinary evidence?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 70#p330870

How can we tell if a miracle really happened?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 09#p878409

[ElCodeMonkey]

[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

Okay, bear with me here. Hitler wasn't "evil", he performed evil. Hitler wasn't "good", he performed (albeit little in comparison to his evil) good. Good and evil are not things or people. They cannot be united under an umbrella of Hitler or man. It is like light and dark. You cannot tell someone to follow light with one breath while expecting the light to put them in darkness. Yes, I know you can lead someone with light into a trap where they'd then be stuck in darkness but that's far more than simply light and far off the point I'm making. Jesus said "follow light, do what's good." People can say this, but evil itself can never say this. It is impossible. A person can say this to make others follow that person, but if the people follow his advice rather than the person, then no evil comes of it. If he says "follow me and do good" where "follow me" will lead to evil, then the "do good" is good and the "follow me" is evil but evil is not saying "follow good" but rather the person. In fact, Jesus tried to make this clarification when someone called him Good teacher. He questioned why he'd call him good. Only God is good because we are to make good our God. If we follow Good, we are following God. This is why you know a tree by its fruit. Anything commanding evil cannot be a good tree. A good tree commands and brings about good fruit. And a good tree is not to be confused with good itself. Good is its own thing like light is its own thing. A flashlight produces light but it itself is not light. Make sense?

[polonius]

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?

RESPONSE: Do you understand the difference between fact and fiction? Do you understand the existence of institutional fiction?

[07-07-07]

[font=Arial]Why Would Jesus Reject Giving a Sign

Jesus didn't entertain unbelievers, nor do I.[/font]

[RightReason]

[Replying to Elijah John]

You just illustrated another one of many Bible contradictions.

If one seriously considers this a Bible contradiction, therein lies the problem.

The means exercised by many to "understand" the Bible is not only lacking, but unfortunately often laughable. It's like listening to a disgruntled adolescent justify why he shouldn't have to listen to his parents.

[marco]

[Replying to Elijah John]

You just illustrated another one of many Bible contradictions.

If one seriously considers this a Bible contradiction, therein lies the problem.

The means exercised by many to "understand" the Bible is not only lacking, but unfortunately often laughable. It's like listening to a disgruntled adolescent justify why he shouldn't have to listen to his parents.

Moderator Comment

It is better to pinpoint the perceived errors a poster has made rather than reduce their status to that of an adolescent. You spoke in generalities but didn't escape incivility. So please attack the issue, not the poster. I know you can do that perfectly well.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Hawkins]

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?

Eyewitnesses are carefully selected as part of the process of human witnessing. Human witnessing is for God to be witnessed by an extremely small amount of eyewitnesses then for majority of human kind along the line of human history to believe with faith to be saved. Or else, God may just show up to everyone, instead of of showing signs to be witnessed.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 12 by ElCodeMonkey]

I will try to make this simpler. Do not good people do evil deeds? Do not evil people do good, sometimes, either by choice(to attract followers or further an agenda) or accident? Maybe we should define good and evil, first.

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 12 by ElCodeMonkey]

I will try to make this simpler. Do not good people do evil deeds? Do not evil people do good, sometimes, either by choice(to attract followers or further an agenda) or accident? Maybe we should define good and evil, first.

I'm kind of with Jesus on this one. There are no good people. For that matter, there are no evil people. There are only people who sometimes do good and sometimes do evil. The only "good" is good itself whom we make our God. So when we serve good, we serve God. If we serve a person or a theology, it does not serve God except in what ways that it might serve good. It is the classic battle of good vs evil. The battle of powers and forces, not of earthly things of kings and queens and names of Gods and scripts of books. So a person might do good to make you follow the person, name, or book, but if they make you follow good and uplift good then it can't possibly be bad. Good and bad are diametrically opposed. Promoting good to lead toward following a book/religion which leads to evil is good only in what good is followed and evil in the rest. If someone says we should care for the elderly in one breath and "to do so" requires killing babies, it changes nothing about the good or evil of either. Helping the elderly is still good and killing the babies is still bad. The religion itself is nothing and the good/bad acts are everything.

[Deleted]

Jesus didn't say he would not perform signs. He said an evil generation seeks for signs, so no sign will be given except the sign of Jonah.

It's all about context. Those he spoke to were of the mindset that a sign is in the critical path toward belief. Jesus was not going to cooperate with that mindset. Because they would discount the sign as magic or some other trick. They were inclined to disbelieve and that disqualified them.

On the otherhand, he had no issue with Thomas wanting to see the wounds because Thomas already believed but wanted to avoid being deceived. Thomas was one of the disciples and had not put scientific proofs up in the way of believing the teachings of Jesus. So Jesus was not contradicting his statement about an evil generation because Thomas had proven he was not of that generation.