Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you." He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! Butnone will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
Matt. 12:38-39
The Pharisees and teachers of the law wanted a sign from Jesus to prove to them that he was the Messiah. Many skeptics today want a miraculous sign for a different reason – to prove to them that God exists and that miracles actually happen. One skeptic I was arguing with said he would believe in God if God turned his grass blue. His reasoning was that it would be a simple enough thing for God to do. If his grass turned blue, he would consider that miraculous. He seemed to feel that God was obligated to meet his demand for proof.
The skeptic presumes that because God wants everyone to believe in him, God should satisfy everyone’s demand for direct, empirical evidence of his existence. But what skeptics don’t seem to understand is that there is more to faith than simply believing that God exists. Faith also involves trust – which is a question of our assessment of God’s character. It’s not enough to simply believe that God exists - faith means putting our trust in him and in his goodness, his love, and his mercy. Many people believe that God exists but do not trust him. Some believe God’s purpose in life is to keep us from having fun, so he gives us restrictive rules. They don’t understand that God’s commands are designed to help us and protect us, to increase our joy rather than decreasing it.
Jesus’ response to the Pharisees is interesting. He says no miraculous sign would be given to them except for the sign of the prophet Jonah. He explains what he means by that in the next verse: “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” Jesus is speaking about the Resurrection as the sign they would receive. It’s still the sign that has been given to every generation since that time wherever the Gospel has been preached. It’s a sign that not only reveals that God exists, but also that he “so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” The Resurrection of the Son of God is our guarantee that we will one day share in the glory of his life if we trust in him.
There is already sufficient proof for the skeptic that God exists. Without God, there is no reason for anything to exist, and thus nothing should exist. The very existence of the cosmos speaks not only to God’s existence, but also to his incredible power, his vast intelligence (if we can even use that term for God), and his creativity. But there is also sufficient proof that Jesus really rose from the dead. There is no natural explanation for the evidence of the early testimony of the first Christians that Jesus had risen from the dead and had appeared to them. It was not a legend, as the written records are much too early for that. All other naturalistic theories have failed – that the disciples made it up, that they were hallucinating, that Jesus didn’t really die but only fainted. None of these theories explain the evidence. The best explanation, the only explanation that really fits the evidence, is that Jesus really did rise from the dead.
The question is not what evidence does the skeptic require before he or she will believe. The real question is what will he or she do with the evidence which has already been given.
4 comments:
'The skeptic presumes that because God wants everyone to believe in him, God should satisfy everyone’s demand for direct, empirical evidence of his existence'
No, the sceptic has read the Bible and seen what evidence 'heroes of faith' were able to demand from this alleged god.
No less a person than Gideon was able to deman that his god make a fleece dry and the rest of the ground wet.
As soon as God did that, this 'hero of faith' at once demanded that God make the fleece wet and the rest of the ground dry.
And then Gideon went on to demand still more signs - the interpretation of a dream.
But Christians of today know that the real world does not contain a god who will produce sign after sign after sign on demand.
So they have to come up with excuses as to why no such signs are given, despite their Holy Book describing a god who is happy to give signs on demand.
And this god complied with request for sign after sign.
Steven,
Gideon's "fleece" was not for the purpose of determining if (as with skeptics) God existed or if (as with the Pharisees) Jesus was the Messiah, but as a sign that the Lord would really save Israel by Gideon's hand. Apparently Gideon was a bit of a chicken (as evidenced by some of his other actions). But that's different than being an unbeliever. Incidentally I'm not aware of where Gideon demanded the interpretation of a dream. If you're referring to Judges 7:13-14, Gideon didn't "demand" anything. God gave him another sign without Gideon asking for it.
Jesus did in fact produce "sign after sign", just not on demand for the skeptical Pharisees and rulers. Elsewhere he pointed to his miracles as evidence that he was the Messiah. Miracles still happen today. They just never satisfy the skeptic. And as I've said, Jesus pointed to the Resurrection as the ultimate sign.
You said, "But Christians of today know that the real world does not contain a god who will produce sign after sign after sign on demand.
"So they have to come up with excuses as to why no such signs are given, despite their Holy Book describing a god who is happy to give signs on demand."
Steven, the book of Matthew was written in the first century. This statement I've quoted, that Jesus would not give a sign on demand to the Pharisees, was attributed to Jesus. Whether you personally believe Jesus said it or not, it was written down by a first-century Christian. So how can you make such a ridiculous statement as saying that this is something that "Christians of today" made up as an excuse? Do first-century Christians count as "Christians of today"? Seriously. This has been a part of Christian teaching since the inception of Christianity, it's not something modern Christians made up as an excuse!
More excuses why this alleged god does not produce signs.
Apparently, he only produces signs for believers like Gideon, or Pharisees who believed in God.
But this alleged god does not produce signs for non-believers.
Please produce one Old Testament prophecy that the Messiah would perform miracles.
Elijah could raise people from the dead. Was that a sign that he was the Messiah?
And, of course, the miracle stories are just made up using Old Testament stories
See Miracles
How did Jesus 'point to the resurrection' as the ultimate sign, when Jesus had read Wright, and knew that not a single Jew had any idea that any resurrection was about to happen?
Do apologists like Wright claim that there was no expectation of a resurrection and that Jesus taught people to expect a resurrection?
I imagine he does, as Christians see nothing wrong with using arguments which contradict each other.
“More excuses why this alleged god does not produce signs.”
I already refuted this idea that anybody is making excuses Steven. Perhaps you’d care to interact with my comments rather than just repeating the same statement again when I just refuted it in the previous comment.
“But this alleged god does not produce signs for non-believers.”
Except for the sign of the prophet Jonah – the Resurrection. You need to pay a little more attention.
“Please produce one Old Testament prophecy that the Messiah would perform miracles.”
Why? Did you see me make a claim that the OT predicted the Messiah would perform miracles? That being said, miraculous signs were associated in the OT with prophets. As that was one of the roles of the Messiah, I believe there was an expectation that the Messiah would perform miracles, hence the demand for a sign from the Pharisees to substantiate Jesus' claim to the title.
“Elijah could raise people from the dead. Was that a sign that he was the Messiah?”
Did anyone make a claim that the ability to perform miraculous signs was proof that someone was the Messiah? Perhaps you were confused by my statement that “elsewhere he [Jesus] pointed to his miracles as evidence that he was the Messiah.” The point is that Jesus said he was the Messiah and the miracles he performed proved that he was from God, and thus truthful, just like with the woman at the well. It’s not that revealing personal information was direct proof that Jesus was the Messiah, but rather it proved to her that Jesus was a prophet from God. Jesus told her that he was the Messiah. Elijah never claimed to be the Messiah. Really, if you’d just think about my arguments a little harder you could avoid these blunders. But you’re not even attempting to understand or interact with what I say. It’s getting quite tiresome for me, and I doubt that anyone else reading this is terribly edified by the spectacle. But I think you are helping to make skeptics in general look bad.
“And, of course, the miracle stories are just made up using Old Testament stories.”
There are miracles in both the Old and New Testaments, that’s true. It doesn’t mean the NT stories were “made up” using OT stories, or that the OT stories themselves weren’t true.
“How did Jesus 'point to the resurrection' as the ultimate sign, when Jesus had read Wright, and knew that not a single Jew had any idea that any resurrection was about to happen?”
Jesus read Wright? That’s an interesting statement. But I’ve already pointed out how Jesus was pointing to the Resurrection when he referred to the “sign of the prophet Jonah.” Did you miss that part? It was in my original post.
“Do apologists like Wright claim that there was no expectation of a resurrection and that Jesus taught people to expect a resurrection?”
Jesus predicted his own resurrection several times leading up to it, that’s correct. If people had expected the Messiah to rise from the dead, they would have responded to Jesus’ predictions by saying “oh, yeah, of course, we knew that already.” But instead they repeatedly didn’t understand what he meant.
“I imagine he does, as Christians see nothing wrong with using arguments which contradict each other.”
How is it contradictory to say that the Jews didn’t expect the Messiah to rise from the dead and that Jesus predicted his own resurrection contrary to their expectations? Because Jesus was a Jew and he expected the Messiah to rise from the dead? Is this seriously your argument? Maybe you should think about that one a little harder.
Steven, I'm going to be hard pressed to continue allowing your comments on my blog when you're clearly just being argumentative without making an actual argument, not interacting with my refutations of your comments, and making no apparent effort to understand what I've said.
Post a Comment