Q: In Matthew 16:4 -- and earlier in 12:39, paralleled in Mark 8:12 and Luke 11:29 -- Jesus said that there shall no sign be given to a wicked and adulterous generation, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. But on several occasions -- specifically, in Mark 16:20, John 3:2, John 20:30, Acts 2:22, Jesus performed all sorts of miraculous signs. Isnt this a contradiction?
A: No. Although the term sign is used by the Gospel-writers to refer to Jesus miracles, what the religious leaders meant as a sign was not just a miracle (which the religious leaders seem to have thought could be done via demonic influence), but a sign from heaven, as Matthew 16:1 and Mark 8:11 say.
Lets look at those other verses.
Mark 16:20 -- And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. -- The signs here, described a few verses earlier, are not signs from heaven. They are works which the apostles and their associates did after Jesus returned to heaven.
John 3:2 -- Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him." -- The Greek word underlying the English word miracles here is semeia, which is the standard word for signs. I consider this a weakness in the KJV; signs is a better translation. But Nicodemus seems to have in mind Jesus healing-miracles (or, if one insists on a strictly chronological arrangement of the book, then signs here must mean the actions of Jesus which implied a claim of divine authority, whether miraculous or not), not a sign-from-heaven.
John 20:30 -- "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book." -- Again, this doesnt refer to celestial signs.
Acts 2:22 -- Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God -- Again, this doesnt refer to celestial signs.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
A: No. Although the term sign is used by the Gospel-writers to refer to Jesus miracles, what the religious leaders meant as a sign was not just a miracle (which the religious leaders seem to have thought could be done via demonic influence), but a sign from heaven, as Matthew 16:1 and Mark 8:11 say.
Lets look at those other verses.
Mark 16:20 -- And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. -- The signs here, described a few verses earlier, are not signs from heaven. They are works which the apostles and their associates did after Jesus returned to heaven.
John 3:2 -- Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him." -- The Greek word underlying the English word miracles here is semeia, which is the standard word for signs. I consider this a weakness in the KJV; signs is a better translation. But Nicodemus seems to have in mind Jesus healing-miracles (or, if one insists on a strictly chronological arrangement of the book, then signs here must mean the actions of Jesus which implied a claim of divine authority, whether miraculous or not), not a sign-from-heaven.
John 20:30 -- "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book." -- Again, this doesnt refer to celestial signs.
Acts 2:22 -- Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God -- Again, this doesnt refer to celestial signs.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
