Miracles are ambiguous.
We continue our discussion in Mark chapter 8. This session we get through another quarter or so of the originally planned material. Specifically we discuss vv. 11-13. The remainder will be picked up next time.
This is a short passage that seems to be almost randomly placed, interrupting the main flow of the narrative in chapter 8; which consists of the feeding of the four-thousand followed by multiple boat trips across Lake Gennesaret (Sea of Galilee), and miracles on either side of the boat journeys. But we’ve been seeing that Mark’s crafting and placement of text is quite intentional. The two sections on either side of vv.11-13 deal with the nature of bread and feeding. Thus 8:1-21 might be yet another example of Mark’s “sandwich rhetoric” where vv.11-13 is the filling. If so, there is something here that is quite vital to the understanding of the entirety of the “sandwich.”
The key to interpretation and understanding is found in verse 11:
The Pharisees came and began to argue with him, seeking from him a sign from heaven to test him. (ESV)
The New International Commentary: Mark explains the phrase “sign from heaven”:
The concept of a sign is intelligible from the OT and later Jewish literature. It signifies a token which guarantees the truthfulness of an utterance or the legitimacy of an action…
The recognition that a sign is primarily an evidence of trustworthiness, not of power, sheds light on this verse. It indicates that the demand for a sign is not a request for a miracle. Jesus' miracles are never designated as signs in Mark's Gospel, nor were they considered to be signs by the Pharisees. They regard Jesus' miracles as ambiguous actions whose meaning must be confirmed by a sign. They had witnessed his mighty works but had concluded they were of demonic agency (Ch. 3:22–30). That is why the Pharisees demand a sign in spite of Jesus' deeds. The request for a sign is a demand that he demonstrate the legitimacy of his actions.[1]
One of the key allusions of a “sign from heaven” is likely to Elijah on Mt. Carmel calling down fire from heaven to vindicate YHWH over the powers of Baal and his prophets. Jesus could perform all the miracles he wanted, but in Jewish tradition even infinite miracles were insufficient to “prove” the agency of the power and motivation behind the miracles. Miraculous works and workers were a dime a dozen in those days (or at least the reports of miracles…). Healing the sick and multiplying food didn’t prove anything significant, or so they believed.
The opponents of Jesus wanted him to prove that his power came from God by something only God could do, at least according to their traditions. And this Jesus would not do. He refused. Why did he refuse? The answer is not as obvious as we may have been commonly led to believe. It hinges on the word “test” which is the same word used in the account of the wilderness temptation. It means “to tempt.”
The problem with the wilderness temptation was not entirely that if Jesus had succumbed, he would have sinned. A key element of the temptation account (the details which are in Matthew and Luke) is that by succumbing to the temptations, Jesus would have allowed himself to fit into the people’s expectations of the Messiah; he would have allowed himself to be defined by religious and cultural traditions and expectations. This he could not do, because God and his purposes cannot be defined by humans.
When the Pharisees come to “test” Jesus, the same dynamic is at work. They are there to approve or disapprove of Jesus’ claims and works. If he gives a sign, he falls into the very temptation that Satan had tempted Jesus with initially.
In Reading Mark its author writes,
If Jesus were to accede to their demand, he would be implicitly acknowledging their right as the religious establishment to define and categorize him according to their standards of legitimation (Waetjen 1989, 140). This, of course, he will not do.[2]
The New International Commentary states a similar interpretation,
Jesus' refusal of a sign has important historical and theological significance. Historically, the demand for a sign expressed the desire to judge Jesus according to norms defined by scribal interpretation… He had already pronounced the scribal norms decayed and sterile (Ch. 7:1–23) and he now rejects their pretentiousness categorically. Theologically, the demand for unmistakable proof that God is at work in Jesus' ministry is an expression of unbelief. It represents the attempt to understand the person of Jesus within categories which were wholly inadequate to contain his reality.[3]
The question for us is, how are we Christians like Pharisees today? In what ways are we demanding that Jesus and God fit into boxes of our making? Boxes of our doctrine and traditions? In what ways have God’s failure to meet our expectations and desires of him led us to doubt and unbelief? And perhaps more pointedly in the context of Mark chapter 8, how is God’s seeming over-inclusiveness been a source of stumbling to us? In what ways have we tried to demand that other people seeking Jesus first fit into particular boxes?
[1] NICNT: Mark, 8:11.
[2] Reading Mark, 8:10-26.
[3] NICNT: Mark, 8:12.
