Story Views
Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

We continue looking at the “Big Seven” reasons why PW thinks Jesus is not God according to Mark’s Gospel and how there “has been a development in the way Jesus is presented in the pages of the New Testament.” Here is big reason number two:

In other words, when it says that Jesus could do no miracle [ouk edounato] there, it does not mean that he could not because He lacked the power and authority to do so, but that he could not because He lacked the moral will to do so in the face of unbelief. This idiomatic way of speaking was common to the Jews. For example: one of the angels told Lot that he could not destroy the city until he flees (Genesis 19:22), when of course he meant is that it was contrary to his mission for him to do so; and when Joseph’s brother’s observed that their father loved Joseph more than them, it says “they hated him and could not speak a kind word to him (Genesis 37:4),” which means that they were unwilling to do so rather than that they lacked the physical ability to do so; and finally, we read of a time “when the Lord could no longer endure your wicked actions and the detestable things you did” (Jeremiah 44:42), which means that it was contrary to His holy will to do so.

An example of this manner of speaking in the New Testament is found in Luke 14:20 where a man reportedly says: “I have a married wife, and therefore I cannot [ou dounami] come.” Of course, the man was not saying he does not have the power to come, but that he does not have the will to do so given what he falsely took to be higher obligations to his wife over the Messiah.

And so, rather than seeing Matthew contradicting Mark, on this understanding Matthew is simply clarifying and complementing what is implicit in the Markan context. Because the people by and large lacked faith, Jesus couldn’t do many mighty miracles there because He would not reward their unbelief. In fact, that is why the verse immediately following this statement in Mark says: “And He wondered/marveled at their unbelief.” Hence, the reason He could not turns not on a lack of power on the part of Jesus but a lack of faith on the part of the people in His hometown. As it is written in the book of Hebrews: “without faith it is impossible to please God.”

This is the judgment of many eminent commentators and exegetes throughout the ages.

He could do no mighty works there, not because of His weakness, but because of their unbelief. He does not do any mighty works there, to spare them lest it be to their greater condemnation that they do not believe even when they have witnessed miracles. But in another sense, the working of miracles requires both the power of the one who works them and the faith of those who receive them. There in that city, because those in need of healing lacked the necessary faith, it was not possible for Jesus to work any signs. Theophylact, The Explanation by Blessed Theophylact of the Holy Gospel According to St. Mark, Volume II in the series: BL. Theophylact’s Explanation of the New Testament (House Springs, Missouri: Chysostom Press, [11c.], 1993), p. 49-50.

…he could not perform these miracles because, under these circumstances of unbelief and opposition, he did not want to do them. Instead of asserting his almighty power to suppress the people’s rebellious stand, he respected their own responsibility for their attitudes and actions. William Hendrickson, Exposition of the Gospel According to Mark, New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 1975), p. 224.

This cannot literally mean that he had lost the power of working miracles in consequence of their rejecting him, but must be taken either in a moral sense, that he could not do so in consistency with the design and purpose of his mission, or more strictly that he could not for the want of opportunity, because the people, having no faith in his healing power, or disdaining to receive the favours of one whom they knew so well and were so unwilling to acknowledge as superior, did not present themselves as in other places. J. A. Alexander, A Commentary on Mark, A Geneva Series Commentary (Carlisle, Pennsylvania: Banner of Truth Trust, [1858], 1984), p. 146.

It was not, of course, that he did not have the power to do more miracles than he did at Nazareth. The inability was related to the moral situation. In the climate of unbelief he chose not to exercise his miraculous power. One of the great emphases of Mark’s Gospel is that Jesus performs his miracles in response to faith. Walter Wessel, Mark, EBC, Vol. 8 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1984), p. 666.

The reason for the inability appears in 6:6a, the unbelief of his friends and family. This means that Jesus does not come as a magician or miracle worker who dazzles his audience with works of power that compel belief (see 15:32: “come down from the cross that we may see and believe”). It does mean that where there is no openness to the power of God (6:2) or where that power becomes a stumbling block to preconceptions the “mighty work” as an invitation to deeper faith and discipleship cannot take place. John R. Donahue, S.J., and Daniel J. Harrington, S.J., The Gospel of Mark, Sacra Pagina (Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 2002), pp. 185-186.

The notice that Jesus was not able to do any mighty works, except he healed a few sick people by the laying on of hands (6:5) is shocking after the many miracles, exorcisms, and healings reported in the previous chapters; it underlines the connection between faith and access to the power of God in Mark (cf. 2:5; 4:40; 5:34, 36; 9:23-24; 10:52; 11:22-24); as 6:6a observes, he marveled on account of their unbelief. Mary Ann Beavis, Mark, Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2011), p. 100.

Jesus’ miracles were not raw displays of power or attempts to entertain people. Instead, they represented the inbreaking of the kingdom of God, which itself is entered/accessed by faith. For people who did not believe in Jesus, no miracle could be expected. Such signs were not offered to wicked and adulterous people. To them the kingdom and its benefits are closed.

As the above shows, PW’s interpretation is hardly necessary. The immediate and broader context of Mark shows that Jesus “could not” do many miracles there in the sense that He would not because of they had no faith. And this is exactly what Matthew says. PW’s argument here rests on a string of assumptions, the first of which is unproven, the second of which is unnecessary and a-contextual.