081. Chapter 22 - Further Controversy and Retreat

Chapter 22 - Further Controversy and Retreat Matthew 15:39;Matthew 16:1-12;Mark 8:10-26

Locale

There is a manuscript difference in Matthew 15:39 as to the place on the northwestern shore of the lake where Jesus disembarked with the apostles. Following one line of manuscripts, the a.v. has Magdala, the a.s.v. has Magadan, but this appears to be just a different spelling of the same word. Mark 8:10 has Dalmanutha. Magdala was a city in the southern part of the plain of Gennesaret on the northwestern shore of the sea. Mary Magdalene was from this city. Dalmanutha was probably a village in the suburbs of Magdala. Matthew identifies the section by the city; Mark mentions the specific suburb where this encounter with the Pharisees occurred.

Shock Troops

Mark says that “the Pharisees came forth,” but he does not state from where. The suggestion is that they had been patiently waiting for Jesus’ return to the center of population in Galilee so they could renew their attacks. Matthew records that the Pharisees and the Sadducees were joined together in this attack, which seems to indicate that the delegation from Jerusalem is still present, trying to block His progress. They must have been waiting for some weeks. The Sadducees were concentrated in Jerusalem. Their presence here in Galilee is significant. The Zealots had used the maneuver of demanding that Jesus show them a sign to prove His claims (John 6:30). The Pharisees and scribes in an earlier attack in Galilee had made this same demand (Matthew 12:38). They now specify “a sign from heaven,” by which they mean an overpowering miracle which they would find irresistible. If pressed to define it, they probably would have cited the crossing of the Red Sea, or the fire called down on Mt. Carmel as Elijah faced the Baal prophets. The Zealots had chosen the miracle of manna in the wilderness, feeding millions and lasting for forty years. Jesus answered these demands steadily with the sublime miracle of the incarnation — the presence of God in their midst in the Person of His Son.

Signs of the Times A familiar rhyme among pioneer Americans was, “Red in the morning, better take warning; red at night, sailors’ delight.” This elemental method of predicting the weather was very ancient. Jesus introduced this fact into the discussion with the Pharisees He pointed out to them that they claimed to be able to read the signs of the weather and to predict it for the coming day, but they were blind to the Messiah — signs of the times. Not even all His prodigious miracles could make them realize the supreme moment of all history had arrived. By four hundred years of silence God had set the new dispensation apart from the old; even in the presence of the Son of God they still asked for more signs. A sign gives direction to the traveler or seeker. Which direction did the miracles of Jesus point? Up to heaven and to God. But when the Pharisees had tried to argue, they pointed down to some subterranean connection with the devil.

After underscoring their perverse blindness, Jesus gave a curt refusal to their demand. Matthew’s report is the more detailed. The denunciation of the generation as “evil and adulterous” pointed out these challengers were really in love with the world while pretending supreme devotion to God. His enigmatic reference to the sign of Jonah, which would one day produce final evidence, must have left them in a state of perplexity. Mark merely records the fact that Jesus refused their demand for a sign. Why does this generation seek a sign carried condemnation of the generation and affirmation of the completely adequate character of the miracles He had already performed.

Mark couches Jesus’ refusal in a figure of speech called aposiopesis (from the two Greek words apo, meaning from, and siopao, meaning to be silent), to break off in silence. The Greek here consists of the if-clause of a conditional sentence with the conclusion omitted. Translated literally it is, “If a sign shall be given unto this generation….” We are left to supply the conclusion to the effect, “then their demand would have seemed justified and His previous miracles minimized.” This figure of speech makes a very emphatic denial, “There shall no sign be given.” Mark did not feel compelled to record here more than the refusal to grant their demand. No such sign as they demanded would be given.

Withdrawal The fourth withdrawal from His enemies followed this attack by the Pharisees and Sadducees. The lake and the boat afforded ready means of departure from the hostile situation created at Magdala. The sorrow of Jesus at having to face the depression of so much unbelief is emphasized by Mark when the demand for a sign was made: “And he sighed deeply in his spirit.” It must have been with a heavy heart that the apostles saw Jesus retreat again from another encounter with His foes. What made it so hard for them to bear was the realization that Jesus had the divine power to destroy all these wicked leaders with a single word. And yet He kept retreating from them!

Dilemma of the Disciples

Both Matthew and Mark introduce this scene with the information that the disciples had forgotten to buy any bread to stock the boat before they started on this trip. Their departure was obviously abrupt. Mark adds the specific information that they did not have but one loaf in the boat. The thin, hard bread kept well, even in hot weather. Evidently Jesus left such common sense details to the disciples. When He talked with the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well, the disciples had gone into Sychar to buy bread. When the twelve had been sent forth to evangelize, they had been strictly charged not to take any supplies with them, but to go in faith depending on the hospitality of the homes where they taught and preached. But now the disciples have no idea where they are going. They are leaving Magdala and crossing the lake, but to what destination? Are they going to the desert again? They have just come from the desert. They had just been without supplies or at least with scant supplies and no small privations. What next? Jesus probably indicated now by a word or a gesture tile point on the opposite shore which was their destination.

Heavy Silence

There must have been times when Jesus and the apostles traveled along in complete silence and the silence grew heavy and oppressive. This seems to have been such a time. The fierce rebuke Jesus gave during this crossing was like a sudden bolt of lightning out of a sky heavy with storm electricity. This is not to suggest that Jesus was moody. There were times when silence was appropriate. Such a time of strained silence is observable at Jacob’s well when the disciples did not understand, but did not question, the conduct of Jesus (John 4:27).

Now as they sailed quietly across the lake, the apostles had time to think things over again. It is evident from the rebuke of Jesus that their thoughts were not wholesome. They were full of bitter disappointment over broken dreams, frustration, and retreat; John the Baptist had been murdered, Jesus was retreating again; where would it all end? The narratives show that the Pharisees made repeated efforts to break down the loyalty of the apostles and to break them off from their Leader. If some of the Pharisees had been able to deliver a venomous sneer at one or more of the apostles before they left Magdala, it would have rankled in the hearts of all the group: “I suppose you men will be disappearing again? Why does not your Master stand His ground?” In the preceding encounter over the handwashing tradition of the Pharisees, the apostles had shown such concern over the fact that the Pharisees had been displeased with His teaching, that Jesus was compelled to warn them sharply to pay no attention to the Pharisees — blind guides of the blind. The Rebuke The rebuke of Jesus included a reference to both Pharisees and Sadducees (in Matthew’s report), and the Pharisees and Herod (in Mark’s). It is not easy to see how the Sadducees and Herod with their wicked, luxurious way of life could have lodgment in the longings and reflections of the apostles. As the boat sailed across the sea, they could see the magnificent palace of Herod Antipas in Tiberias. Certainly his vile orgies would not attract them, but how would it be to live in such a palace? Had not God enabled David and Solomon to erect magnificent palaces? Did not the Old Testament depict indescribable glory for the Messiah? How would a luxurious life in such a palace contrast to their present bare subsistence? The devil was ever ready to thrust into their hearts the poison arrow, Life with the Messiah on a crust of bread!” and to add, “All these will I give thee, if only thou wilt fall down and….” Their reflections were suddenly broken by the stern rebuke, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees and Herod.” That word take heed is a startling warning, “Watch your step there, you are in deadly peril!” If Jesus had been seated for some time in absolute silence looking off in abstraction, and the disciples had been unable to bring themselves to break into His reverie, the wrathful condemnation of Jesus would have been most penetrating. It is plain that Jesus lapsed again into silence allowing His disciples to figure out the meaning of another enigmatic saying: “They reasoned one with another” (Mark 8:16). As they went into a huddle trying to decide why the stern manner, the penetrating look, the wrathful condemnation of voice, they must have asked one another, “Now what have we done this time that is wrong?” Hot on the pursuit of a false trail, they came up with the idea that they were being condemned because they had forgotten to secure bread for a journey of unknown nature.

Weiss’ Theory

Weiss suggests that the apostles thought what Jesus actually was doing was warning them against buying carelessly in the market place poison loaves that might have been planted there by the Pharisees. They had repeatedly tried to assassinate Him. They would probably be delighted to wipe out the entire group. Poisoning was a favorite method of assassination among the ancients. The disciples must not buy bread in the market place. They must beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herod. They must only buy bread from faithful disciples where they could be sure it was safe. This suggestion is not only farfetched, it is absurd, and carries the insidious denial of the divine foresight and insight of Jesus. By long experience the disciples knew that Jesus could read even the hidden thoughts of the heart as an open book. He did not endure doubt and uncertainty over such a matter as this. He would have known the nature of any bread about to be used. He would have known any such plot. The preceding context carries no suggestion whatever of such a situation. Weiss perversely insists on making literal that which is plainly figurative. He contradicts Jesus’ explanation that He was not talking about bread. The disciples missed the mark in their discussion of “one loaf,” but Weiss misses the entire arena.

Further Rebuke

After sufficient time for them to consider His first rebuke, Jesus added another which was even more severe. He quoted the blazing condemnation of the sixth chapter of Isaiah: “Do ye not yet perceive, neither understand? have ye your heart hardened? Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember” (Mark 8:17, Mark 8:18). Jesus seems to he saying, “Must I apply even to you these terrible words” (Matthew 13:13-17). Then Jesus questioned them about how many baskets of fragments they had collected after the feeding of the five thousand, and after the miracle of the four thousand Surely they should have realized He was not warning them about such a matter as a short supply of bread.

Matthew shows that Jesus explained what He had meant by His veiled saying, just as Mark records Jesus’ quoting Isaiah’s sixth chapter against them. What independence of narration! The explanation which Jesus gave is hidden from the reader, for He repeated the same words, “How is it that ye do not perceive that I spake not to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees” (Matthew 16:11). The explanation was evidently given by His peculiar emphasis on the word leaven and by the contempt and disgust which was revealed in His voice, face, and manner. Matthew then informs us that the disciples now understood that He was not talking about bread, “but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”

Bethsaida Julias

Mark shows that the journey did not head immediately into desert country, for they entered into the city of Bethsaida Julias. It was situated at the north eastern corner of the Sea of Galilee. It had been built by Philip on the edge of his northern province to assist him in collecting taxes from the commerce passing across into his brother’s domain. He had named the city Julias after the notorious daughter of Julius Caesar. The Blind Man A blind man was brought by his friends to Jesus for miraculous healing. The encounter seems to have taken place in a suburb of Bethsaida, for “he took hold of the blind man by the hand, and brought him out of the village.” The tender sympathy of Jesus is shown by His gracious manner in taking the blind man by the hand and gently leading Him out into the open country. He might have left this guidance to the relatives and friends, But the blind man was to have this precious recollection the rest of his life, “Oh the touch of His hand on mine.”

Jesus was still trying to keep down excessive excitement. He was now again in the region east of the Sea of Galilee about fifteen miles from the place where He had fed the four thousand. This is the second miracle recorded by Mark in this part of His ministry. Both miracles occurred during this period of retirement. Both were worked in territory of mixed Gentile and Jewish population. Both men were taken away from the crowd into a private session for the miracle. In both Jesus used spittle and physical touch. In both miracles He took careful precautions to avoid publicity. Mark is the only writer to record these two miracles. The Miracle This miracle is the only one which was in any sense gradual. The first step in the cure cannot be called failure. Jesus had not in His usual masterly fashion commanded the eyes of the man to be opened; but, after spitting on his eyes and laying His hands on them, He asked whether he could see anything. The man could see, but not distinctly. Then with a second touch and a fixed look by the man, the sight was completely restored. We cannot tell why the miracle was performed in two steps. The question Jesus asked seems to indicate that the method was His deliberate plan. The man had not been born blind, but had lost his sight, for he knew the appearance of trees and men. McGarvey holds that the miracle was not gradual, but consisted of two instantaneous miracles, each of which accomplished exactly what Jesus intended; and that Jesus used this different method to reveal that He could heal in part and by progressive steps. It certainly did dramatically emphasize the immediacy of Jesus’ other miracles.

Jesus’ Methods

Weiss holds that only this miracle shows the real process followed by Jesus in healing; the use of physical touch and gradual cure must be read into the accounts of all other miracles. This theory denies absolutely the truthfulness of the repeated statements that Jesus healed instantaneously with a word. But even such violence to the records cannot reduce this miracle of healing the blind man to a natural process, for Jesus did not use medicine, and the healing was not gradual in the ordinary sense. Gould replies to Weiss that it is absurd to take these two miracles in Mark’s Gospel as the necessary model for all when the peculiarities are a part of this exceptional period in the ministry of Jesus.

Moreover it is very singular that this gradual cure occurs in the Gospel which emphasizes most the immediacy of the cures. Out of the eleven miracles of healing recorded in Mark, five speak directly of the immediateness of the cure, and of the rest three give circumstances implying the same (op. cit) p. 150). And yet Weiss holds that all the others must be conformed to this one miracle!

Weiss and even Meyer hold that the spittle was an actual means of cure, but they admit that power was supernaturally infused into it to produce the cure! McGarvey holds that the man’s eyes were sore and the spittle was used to soften and relieve them. But since Jesus was about to heal the man by a miracle, this is not very convincing. It was rather a sign or symbol — a part of the pantomime used by Jesus to stir faith in the heart of this blind man, as in the case of the dumb stammerer. Since the blind man could hear, it is not certain why Jesus did not use ordinary speech to the man to make clear His purpose to heal him. He might have allowed others to lead the man by the hand; He might have healed him instantly with a word; He might have spoken of His purpose rather than spit on his eyes and touch them gently with His hand. While His purpose in these methods remains obscure, the actuality of the miracle and the tender sympathy of Jesus are manifest.

Miracles as Proof

Immediately after having refused to work a miracle on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee upon the insistent demand of His enemies, Jesus performed this impressive miracle on the northeastern shore. But He was careful to send the man home by a private route so that he would not even go into the village and cause the excitement to flare up again. In refusing the demand of the Pharisees and Sadducees, Jesus did not rebuke any desire for evidence of miracles to prove His divine claims. he refused to work a miracle to satisfy the demands of evil men who were denying the validity of all His miracles. To have yielded to their demand would have been tantamount to admitting that His previous miracles had been inadequate proof. Matthew’s report shows that Jesus did predict a final sign would be given in His resurrection. Jesus continually rebuked the generation for not accepting the miraculous evidence He gave.

Some modernists with a perversity equaling that of the Pharisees and Sadducees quote this passage from Mark as proof that Jesus never worked any miracles! This is in the face of all the miracles which Mark records, not to mention the other three accounts. Gould uses this passage in Mark to argue his contention that the miracles of Jesus never had the purpose of proving the divine presence and power of Jesus, but only the purpose of relieving human suffering. But the lack of faith in Christ is the very source of the deepest of human suffering. The Gospel records are filled with explicit references to the fact that the miracles of Jesus had as a primary purpose to cause the world to believe on Him. John definitely affirms this:….that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life in his name” (John 20:31). Test the Synoptics on this issue at any point, and see how Jesus required faith, tested faith, commended faith in the working of miracles. The unutterable sadness of Jesus at the unbelief of the Pharisees and Sadducees as they demanded a sign from heaven is mute testimony to Jesus’ primary purpose in working miracles (Mark 8:12). His refusal to work a miracle when taunted by His enemies is itself strong proof of the miracles He did work. A good book or a good life is as desirable for what it omits and avoids as for what it contains. The miracles of Jesus fit the divine character of Jesus, His moral perfection, and His sublime teaching. “No one could have devised the story of a miracle-working person, and have kept the story true to Jesus’ principles and character. The wonderful thing about the miracles is that the Divine power shown in them is kept to uses befitting the Divine being” (Gould, I.C.C. on Mark, p. 145). But it would not have been fitting, it would rather have been a sign of weakness for Jesus to have yielded to the taunts of His enemies, as they demanded a sign from heaven. It was always fitting for Jesus to seek to save lost souls. Faith in Him as the Son of God and Savior of men is the grand prerequisite for the giving of God’s most precious gift of forgiveness and redemption. It is altogether appropriate that the miracles of Jesus should have been used by Him to lead men to that saving faith.