Ignoring Jesus in the Gospels

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hamalas

whippersnapper
What are we to make of the various people in the Gospel narratives who ignore Christ's commands not to tell people about His miracles? I'm thinking of passages such as this one:

Mark 7:31 Then he returned from the region of Tyre and went through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, in the region of the Decapolis. 32 And they brought to him a man who was deaf and had a speech impediment, and they begged him to lay his hand on him. 33 And taking him aside from the crowd privately, he put his fingers into his ears, and after spitting touched his tongue. 34 And looking up to heaven, he sighed and said to him, “Ephphatha,” that is, “Be opened.” 35 And his ears were opened, his tongue was released, and he spoke plainly. 36 And Jesus charged them to tell no one. But the more he charged them, the more zealously they proclaimed it. 37 And they were astonished beyond measure, saying, “He has done all things well. He even makes the deaf hear and the mute speak.”​
 
I read Mark 7 the other day and had a similar question as you. Looking forward to hearing from the collective wisdom who answer this.
 
I think a reasonable conclusion is this: By issuing his commands, Jesus accomplished two things.

1) He verbally demonstrates that he is not showing forth his signs in order to obtain notoriety. The signs point to Jesus, and draw attention to him (such is the very nature of a sign). However, they are not for personal glory, for stoking public adulation, or for the accumulation of political power. Jesus is calling for a very different following. He wants people who want to come to God (the Father) through him, Mk.9:37; Jn.7:18.

Jesus is not looking for the creation of a "critical mass" of people, in order that he might achieve the goal of so many who aim at leveraging their fame: namely, to be raised to the place where he might legitimately (in the eyes of public opinion) and unstoppably assume the throne of the nation. That this came to the minds of more than a few is evidenced by the statement of Jn.6:15 (& see context).

2) The second thing accomplished is that in some cases, possibly even most of them, the people listened to Jesus and curbed their impulses, at least to some degree. The ones recorded in the Gospels (e.g. Mk.7:36) are known failures. The effect of such damping directives most certainly slowed down what otherwise would have been news that spread like wildfire, and probably included even more misunderstanding and exaggeration. As it was, these disobediences had a providential effect impacting the manner of Jesus' mission, see e.g. Mk.1:45.

That Jesus called for "modesty" by silence in the face of the curious inquiries that must surely have followed people come home with obvious healing and wonder, had to make for an element of sobriety in the inevitable spilling of the beans. There would be less hyperbole, more reverence in those from whom the story was "pulled," so to speak. I speak naturalistically, according to the way humans typically behave; and not by some spiritual quality the people who were healed possessed.

The tendency to hold one's tongue (as requested) also helps explain why there were and continues to be much less in the way of "unofficial" (i.e. non-apostolic Gospel) accounts of Jesus' miracle working from the time. It simply isn't the case that there were myriad accounts, truthful and exaggerated, that were circulating and needing constant sifting truth from error. The weird stories and exaggerations come with the fictional and late (2nd-3rd Century) Gnostic Gospels.

***************
Jesus is the King and Messiah, he doesn't need the signs to move the people to "let" or "urge" him to be. His mission is to bring men to God, through his Person and work. And in order to do that, he has a timetable and intermediate goals. The signs are necessary, but they also must not be allowed to take on a life of their own. This is his agenda, and it will not be co-opted by men or circumstances "beyond his control." Jesus has an appointment in Jerusalem (Mt.16:21; Mk.10:32; Lk.9:51) on a specific Passover season.
 
I think a reasonable conclusion is this: By issuing his commands, Jesus accomplished two things.

1) He verbally demonstrates that he is not showing forth his signs in order to obtain notoriety. The signs point to Jesus, and draw attention to him (such is the very nature of a sign). However, they are not for personal glory, for stoking public adulation, or for the accumulation of political power. Jesus is calling for a very different following. He wants people who want to come to God (the Father) through him, Mk.9:37; Jn.7:18.

Jesus is not looking for the creation of a "critical mass" of people, in order that he might achieve the goal of so many who aim at leveraging their fame: namely, to be raised to the place where he might legitimately (in the eyes of public opinion) and unstoppably assume the throne of the nation. That this came to the minds of more than a few is evidenced by the statement of Jn.6:15 (& see context).

2) The second thing accomplished is that in some cases, possibly even most of them, the people listened to Jesus and curbed their impulses, at least to some degree. The ones recorded in the Gospels (e.g. Mk.7:36) are known failures. The effect of such damping directives most certainly slowed down what otherwise would have been news that spread like wildfire, and probably included even more misunderstanding and exaggeration. As it was, these disobediences had a providential effect impacting the manner of Jesus' mission, see e.g. Mk.1:45.

That Jesus called for "modesty" by silence in the face of the curious inquiries that must surely have followed people come home with obvious healing and wonder, had to make for an element of sobriety in the inevitable spilling of the beans. There would be less hyperbole, more reverence in those from whom the story was "pulled," so to speak. I speak naturalistically, according to the way humans typically behave; and not by some spiritual quality the people who were healed possessed.

The tendency to hold one's tongue (as requested) also helps explain why there were and continues to be much less in the way of "unofficial" (i.e. non-apostolic Gospel) accounts of Jesus' miracle working from the time. It simply isn't the case that there were myriad accounts, truthful and exaggerated, that were circulating and needing constant sifting truth from error. The weird stories and exaggerations come with the fictional and late (2nd-3rd Century) Gnostic Gospels.

***************
Jesus is the King and Messiah, he doesn't need the signs to move the people to "let" or "urge" him to be. His mission is to bring men to God, through his Person and work. And in order to do that, he has a timetable and intermediate goals. The signs are necessary, but they also must not be allowed to take on a life of their own. This is his agenda, and it will not be co-opted by men or circumstances "beyond his control." Jesus has an appointment in Jerusalem (Mt.16:21; Mk.10:32; Lk.9:51) on a specific Passover season.

This is super helpful, thank you brother. (I was secretly hoping you would reply when I posted the question!)

One follow up: is it safe to conclude that the people who ignored Christ's commands to be silent are sinning in spreading the news?

I have a friend who presses this point pretty persistently (to the point of viewing the characters in Mark 7 in a very negative light) because of their "disobedience" on this point.

On the flip side, I've heard other preachers who have extolled the way in which these people were so eager to share the news of Jesus.

What's the right view to take here?
 
This is super helpful, thank you brother. (I was secretly hoping you would reply when I posted the question!)

One follow up: is it safe to conclude that the people who ignored Christ's commands to be silent are sinning in spreading the news?

I have a friend who presses this point pretty persistently (to the point of viewing the characters in Mark 7 in a very negative light) because of their "disobedience" on this point.

On the flip side, I've heard other preachers who have extolled the way in which these people were so eager to share the news of Jesus.

What's the right view to take here?
In my judgment, the duty of those who were directed to be still was to be as still as possible. What if they were ordered by other authorities to speak (e.g. Jn.9:24)? I think the man's duty in that situation would be to speak, if his conscience so bid him. That is, I think Jesus' command is somewhat qualified, because I don't believe Jesus would have a son gone home to his mother or family clamp his lips shut when they pleaded for some explanation.

I think Jesus knew there was inevitable leakage, and that having it come forth under some semblance of control was preferable to a "burst hydrant" release. I think that those who appear simply to ignore Jesus' own expressions of "modesty" wrt the publication are at least guilty of not putting the Lord's purpose ahead of their own impulses. Jesus made adjustments to the tack of his ministry (says Mark) because of the providential allowances in the situation. His warning was God ordained, but so was the human failure around him, and so his steps were directed by God the Father.

We should view the different circumstances differently, as in Mk.1:44 & 7:36; and Lk.17:14; or quite the opposite, Lk.8:39, “Return to your own house, and tell what great things God has done for you.” And he went his way and proclaimed throughout the whole city what great things Jesus had done for him." In other words: consider the context, consider the timing, consider Jesus' exact words and the possibility of new circumstances affecting what the Lord said.

It would be a mistake to approve every careless expression, and it would be a mistake to condemn every thoughtful witness.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top