Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Mark

[Wasabio]

Did Christ contradict himself when speaking about the signs he would provide to the "adulterous generation"?

I have been reading the book of Mark and came across this passage in Chapter 8:

"11 The Pharisees came out and began to argue with Him, seeking from Him a sign from heaven, to test Him. 12 Sighing deeply in His spirit, He *said, “Why does this generation seek for a sign? Truly I say to you, no sign will be given to this generation.” 13 Leaving them, He again embarked and went away to the other side."

I cross-referenced these verses with Christ's statements in Matt 16:4 and Matt. 12:39 and I found that in the Gospel of Mark it doesn't say that Christ would provide the "sign of Jonah" mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew, but that no sign would be provided to this adulterous generation. If someone could explain this to me, that would be very helpful. Personally, I don't think he contradicted himself, but I lack a proper understanding of the passage. Thank you!

[jimwalton]

The two accounts don't contradict. It maybe the same saying but with two variant forms. The account in Matthew is most likely the fullest one. In almost every case Mark gives a more abbreviated form, when the other Gospel authors fill the teaching with more detail. It's not a contradiction. Each Gospel writer has to choose what to include to suit his purpose in writing. Mark may have left the Jonah part out because it is not the kind of sign the Pharisees were requesting. For all realistic intents and purposes, the sign of Jonah is no sign at all. It was certainly no "sign from heaven" as the Pharisees where requesting. The "sign of Jonah" was an image of Jesus's dying and rising, and it was a warning to the Israelites that, though even wicked Nineveh repented at the preaching of Jonah, they are in danger of refusing the one greater than Jonah. So in both cases no sign was given.

[Wasabio]

OK. To be clear:

The "sign of Jonah" is really a warning of the Jews' future refusal of the revealed Christ, and so it is not really an exception to the rule "no sign will be given to this generation" because it is in nature truly a warning, and not a sign.

Is that correct?

[jimwalton]

Let's go through the text. They ask for a sign. The word is *semeion*, and it often designates a miracle. More likely, though, most ancient people, including the Jews in this era, believed that signs in the heavens predicted events about to take place, but more importantly that if someone claimed authority in teaching and prophecy it would often be accompanied by some sign to authenticate the divine message (sort of like Moses being able to make his stick turn into a serpent, or Elijah having Gehazi's eyes opened to see the armies of God protecting the city). We see examples of this kind of thing in 1 Sam. 1 Sam. 2.30-34; 1 Ki. 20.1ff; Isa. 7.10ff. The Jewish apocalypse did speak of spectacular displays of power by the Messiah, "The Son of Man." The devil had suggested that Jesus let the people see him drop down from the pinnacle of the temple and not get hurt.

So they want a sign. Do they want fire from heaven? Some kind of miracle or trick to prove Jesus's identity and message? As opposed to the earthly kinds of miracles Jesus is already doing, they obviously want something more, something different.

But the text specifically says they weren't sincere, they were just testing him (as the Israelites tested God in Ex. 17.1-7). We can assume their intent was negative. In requesting a sign, they want a public, definitive proof that God is with him. They are trying to "test the prophet" according to Dt. 13.2-6; 18.18-22. They want a prophecy that will definitively come true in short order. Their question is tantamount to "What is the source of your authority?" (Remember that previously they accused that his authority was Satanic.)

Jesus responds to them in Matthew 16.2-3: You clearly know how to read obvious signs ("Red sky at night, sailors' delight"). But then why can't you see the obvious about me?

Then in Matthew 16.4 he says they won't get a sign, "except the sign of Jonah." The sign of Jonah was Jesus's death and resurrection, still quite future. It wasn't what they were asking for, but it was exactly the "pièce de résistance" they were demanding. There would be no lightning from the sky or turning the water to blood, and Jesus wouldn't conform to their request for a trick-on-demand. His death and resurrection would indeed be a confirmation of his identity and his work, and at the same time a condemnation of their apostasy and unbelief (Mt. 21.18-20—the illustration of the fig tree, the authority of Jesus questioned [vv. 23-27], the parable of the two sons [vv.28-32], and the parable of the tenants [vv. 33-46]).

"The sign of Jonah" was an analogy of dying and rising and a warning about hearing and disobeying. It's not really a sign at all, not as they were asking for. It was a declaration about his resurrection, a prediction that they would not believe, and a warning that only judgment would ensue.

[Wasabio]

I understand. It's almost as if Christ is making a play on the word "sign", similar to the play on words he makes in Matthew 16:18. So the Pharisees never did receive a "sign" in the sense that they wanted, which is aligned with the Mark passage, but Christ did "display" the "sign of Jonah" through his death and resurrection.

[jimwalton]

That's correct. You got it.