Seeking A Sign?

Mark 8:10-13

Rev. Billy Kristanto

Mark chapter 8 starting from verse 10 is actually a new beginning of a story. There is a shift which will be discussed later on. It finds its climax in Peter’s declaration concerning Jesus as the Messiah in verse 29, so we are anticipating this passage and it is interestingly like a division. Chapter 8 verse 29 is decisive because after this solid declaration or confession represented by Peter, there is a move in Jesus’ ministry. Now the context is toward Jerusalem. It’s clearer and clearer. It is a movement toward Jesus’ suffering, Jesus’ passion which culminated in His death on the cross. But before that beautiful verse about Peter’s confession, I think we should contemplate this demand of sign.

You might ask what is the problem with demanding a sign? Isn’t it good? If you are not really confirmed then you look, you ask, you seek for a sign to confirm your faith so that you can believe, but that is certainly not the case here. The English translation is not really clear but the verbs in the original Greek actually tell us more about the situation of the Pharisees, of their hearts, who were trying to oppose Jesus. It is very antagonistic actually. From the very beginning verse 11 says that the Pharisees came. This word ‘came’ has a certain military tone. It is highly loaded with the sense of military rank, meaning the Pharisees somehow positioned themselves as a kind of judge or they certainly placed themselves in a higher rank than Jesus. Jesus was like a new prophet, so he needed to be tested by the Pharisees. And not only did they question him, they also began to argue with him, seeking from Him a sign from heaven. Again the original Greek word has an antagonistic sense. They wanted to dispute. They wanted to oppose Jesus. The word ‘seek’ as in the Markan narrative is not just simply asking but it rather means an attempt or an effort to gain control. So you question someone because you want to control, and this reflects many of us in our attitude towards religion. Sometimes we mistake Christianity as belonging to any kind of religion because from religion we want to have this certainty or surety; we want a life that is more predictable. That is why we like to have this transactional relation with God because when you have this kind of transactional relation, you think God is somehow predictable. But again the true knowledge of God cannot be reduced to the fact that once you are religious then you will have more certainty in your life. Actually the spiritual journey when we follow Jesus is also frequently accompanied with doubt. But doubt can lead to belief. But there is also doubt that arises from a disbelieving heart. So there are two kinds of doubts here. The humble doubt that you want to be confirmed, that you want to learn, or the kind of prideful doubt like that of the Pharisees. They attempted to gain control by questioning Jesus. They wanted this certainty. They want to ensure that their lives, their religiosity, their culture, their everything that is around them were not threatened by the presence of Jesus.

And also the word ‘testing’ is full of pejorative meaning, as in the words ‘came’, ‘seek’, ‘argue’. This is not a humble test. This is not a neutral test. This is not an objective test to know the truth but rather to seek certain signs to accuse Jesus to find a certain stumbling block so that they could discredit Jesus. This verb, in the gospel of Mark, occurs only four times and the first time it appears is in the story of Satan’s temptation of Jesus. In the story of temptation the same word is used in Mark 1:13, and then three times used or applied in the story regarding the Pharisees who opposed Jesus.. It is a pretty sad juxtaposition here as if the Pharisees were in the position of Satan. Mark chapter 8, 10 and 12 use the same word. To test, again, is not a humble test, not an objective test nor a neutral test but a test to discredit Jesus. They already made their decision not to believe Jesus. Along the story we know that the Pharisees challenged and they wanted to confront Jesus because they did not have the humility to learn. They had their own business and they thought it was flourishing. They did not want to be threatened by the presence of this new famous prophet called Jesus.

In Paul’s epistle to the Corinthians, it is interesting that even Paul himself said this. 1 Corinthians 1:22 says, ‘For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom. But we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. So certainly this is not about racial discrimination. Paul himself is a Jew. This is not about discrimination against Jews or against Greeks because this is a universal problem represented by Jews and Greeks, meaning the Jews who have the Torah and the Gentile people. The Jews demand signs, so they do not want to believe unless signs are provided. This is so typical. But then if you look at the gentile nations represented by the Greeks, they seek wisdom. Of course, by the word wisdom here they meant human wisdom. You should be able to demonstrate Christianity in a logical manner as the highest philosophy. You might ask, what’s wrong with that? I mean, aren’t we taught that our faith should be reasonable and not superstitious? That is why we need to have a good apologetics, reasonable faith, reasonable Christianity, etc. Of course, yes, but again, the word ‘wisdom’ here, is an expression of human arrogance and pride that does not want to submit to the foolishness of the gospel. There is always this kind of stumbling block: the hiddenness, the beauty of the gospel both for the Jews and the Gentiles or the Greeks.

Back to the passage in Mark, we see that even Paul sharply criticized this demand of miraculous signs as a way as a guarantee that someone will have no choice but to follow Jesus. What is at stake here, be it through science or human wisdom, is that we do not want to believe; we do not have the courage to believe; we always cultivate our doubts, and then we pretend to say that if signs are given, we will give up our doubts. If there are no signs, then it is very difficult for me to believe. I quoted a few weeks ago the famous interview with Bertrand Russell. I want to quote it again. One day he was asked what if in reality he was wrong and God exists. He then answered that maybe he would say sorry to God as the evidence is not clear enough, hence he was full of doubt, as if it was not his problem. If you want to believe, you need courage to believe. If you do not want to take responsibility, if you are not courageous enough to believe, then you will demand these kinds of signs. Give me logical rational explanations. Give me wisdom. It should be compatible with the way of my logical thinking otherwise I will not believe or maybe give me miraculous signs like Moses had, and I shall be attracted to Christian belief. This is precisely what happened here.

But then we read Jesus’ response. Jesus sighed deeply in His spirit. It is not an expression of anger. It is rather more an expression of dismay or perhaps to a certain extent, despair. Not that Jesus is hopeless, but despair in the sense that this situation is really helpless. This kind of people cannot be helped. an expression of dismay. The original Greek word is actually used to describe a certain situation where it is tested to the limits; pushed to the limit of their patience, of their faithfulness, of their love. You would not want to test a certain person into this kind of limit. People have their limits and so did Jesus. That is why He left at the end of the story.

So Jesus sighed deeply in his spirit and said, ‘Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly I say to you, no sign will be given to this generation.’. The antagonism of the Pharisees reminds us of the antagonism of the people of Israel during Moses’ time. It is like a repetition here. There is a pattern in the story. What happened to Moses now happened to Jesus: the same stubbornness, the same unbelief, now directed against Jesus. It also recalls the story of the disbelieving generation in the story of Noah. In Genesis 7, Noah with his family were alone in their belief in God’s promise. They built an ark and they lived among a disbelieving generation. Also, the liberated Israelites were also stubborn during their journey in the wilderness. You see the pattern again and again throughout the holy scripture from the old testament to the new testament. And this is what Jesus basically experienced here.

In Jesus’ answer it is clear that no sign will be given to this generation (to this unbelieving generation). Jesus’ phrase ‘I tell you the truth’ is not used frequently, but when Jesus used this phrase, it is actually very important to give this statement in answering the stubbornness of the human hearts. After He was opposed, He left them. This is not just a geographical leaving but is a symbolic action, that Jesus had decided to part way with the Pharisees. There is this motive of withdrawal. Because they kept opposing Jesus, He withdrew from them. The withdrawal itself is not a sign of weakness but rather a sign of dignity.

Next week we are going to celebrate Pentecost Sunday. We will read about the Person of the Holy Spirit. He can be grieved. He can be quenched and He can withdraw Himself. Sometimes we have a wrong idea of divine omnipresence as always being there. It is totally insensitive of human rejection or human acceptance. That is not the biblical God. This is also the sad story when we contemplate the spiritual situation in Europe. Although we should be grateful we see the work of God here and there, let us keep praying for the true revival. When people keep opposing Jesus, ridiculing the church, denying the holy scripture, we should not wonder why there is no God’s presence. This is the logical conclusion. Jesus was so dignified that he did not want to stay there, so He withdrew from them. He left them because they are the ones who needed Jesus and it was not Jesus who needed them.

But let us go back to the problem of signs. What is the problem of demanding a sign in our life? Sometimes when we have doubt, we ask God for a sign. The real problem is that signs can be used to replace or to substitute the needs of faith. Let me quote from the commentary, ‘In the synoptic gospels, the demand for signs is itself a sign of attempting to gain by empirical means what can only be gained by faith and trust.’. You want to replace or substitute faith and trust with empirical evidence so that you do not need to believe. But Christianity and following Jesus are impossible without faith and trust. Faith and trust cannot be replaced with human wisdom or rational explanation as if one can submit to this truth without any kind of faith. That is not a possibility in the Christian religion.

The commentary also says, ‘That is why also Jesus forsakes signs, for to force the evidence upon one would make a faith response by its very nature impossible.’. It is the reality that in our spiritual journey, true faith is often or sometimes accompanied with doubts that are ‘normal’, but we cannot substitute faith with anything else that is not faith. And this is the problem with demanding a sign. They demand a sign, but we read in other parts of the Bible that Lazarus was resurrected from the dead, and did the Pharisees believe? No, so a sign was not a guarantee for the Pharisees to believe. This was just a lame excuse for their reluctance to believe in Jesus, while the Greeks demand wisdom i.e. the philosophical standard. There is always this kind of temptation in our lives even as a believer that we want to replace faith with something else. I do not know what is our idol that hinders us from having simple faith, childlike faith in God. It can be human wisdom. It can be science, meaning something should be proven. After I have some evidence I somehow can believe. We are from the reformed tradition. The Augustinian tradition likes to emphasize the order of faith that is seeking understanding, so I believe in order to understand. I believe, I trust so that I can understand. But the modern order is that give me the sign first, give me the logical understanding, then I will believe. That is not the Augustinian tradition. That is not the reformed tradition.

It is impossible to know God, to come into a deeper knowledge of God without faith. Last Thursday we talked about the impossibility of knowing beyond our love for Him. No one can know God. No one can know God deeper beyond his or her love for Him. Unless we know God through our love or with our love, it is impossible to have true knowledge of God because knowledge of God is not an objective knowledge whether you believe or do not believe. It is not about considering where the information or statement is true and then taking a decision to believe. There is a total impossibility to know God without faith and without love. Perhaps like love itself, love is not something to be proven. There is an anecdote of a very thick book about trying to understand a woman. The conclusion reads that a woman is not to be understood; a woman is to be loved. If you love a woman then you understand her. This is not sexist by the way but is just an example. It is not to be understood but to be loved. I think there is a certain truth in it. If you love someone then you can understand not only a woman because without love there is no possibility of understanding other people. Perhaps we pretend to understand them. Perhaps we think that we know them but we do not really know because without love there is no true understanding. There is no true knowledge of others, let alone knowledge of God. Even God Himself knows us not without love. That is the very meaning when He said, ‘Go away from me all you lawless workers. I never knew you.’. God never knew them. I think the word ‘knew’ here does not mean that God has a certain sector in the brain that is devoid of knowledge. That is not the meaning of ‘I never knew you’. Of course God is always omniscient. He knows this person very well. But he does not place this person as an object of His love. That’s the meaning of ‘I never knew you’. This is not about objective knowledge because God certainly has this objective knowledge. God loves us. God knows us also with love and with trust.

We are humans. When we want to grow deeper in the true knowledge of God then it is not something that we have to prove or ask God to prove Himself so that He is worthy to be believed or that He is worthy to be loved. This is totally misleading. That is not the way of Christianity. The way of Christianity is an invitation for you and for me to trust, to obey, to be actively committed to do what God demands, what God commands in our lives. That is the way of Christianity. Not by seeking or demanding a sign or signs. Not by expecting demonstrable human wisdom of the highest order of philosophical explanation. The way of Christianity is simple. It is through faith. Let me close with another quote from another theologian Edward Schweizer, ‘Faith comes when one steps into the boat with Jesus and does not prefer to remain in safety on the shore.’. We read in the passage here that Jesus left them on the shore and He got into the boat again and went to the other side. What a sad ending for the Pharisees but it was not a sad ending for Jesus because He had other persons to serve. But for the Pharisees they were doomed because they wanted to replace the necessity of faith, the necessity to believe, with a sign. (S.W.)