The Demand for a Miracle

Why was it wrong for the Pharisees to demand a miracle?  Jesus was capable and willing to grant them, even for people who had doubts.  So what’s the nature of the wrongdoing in requesting such a miracle?

Leon Morris

The kind of miracle they were demanding Jesus consistently refused to perform. His miracles were always directed toward the fulfilling of a need felt by those for whom the miracle was performed. Jesus was no circus performer, gratifying the appetite for wonders on the part of people who were not serious about spiritual things. From the beginning he refused to demand that God should do miraculous things for him (4:5–7).

D.A. Carson

In the past God had graciously granted “signs” to strengthen the faith of the timid (e.g., Abraham [Ge 15]; Gideon [Jdg 6:17–24]; Joshua [Jos 10]). Here, however, Jesus says that signs are denied “this wicked and adulterous generation,” because they are never to be performed on demand or as a sop (a thing given or done as a concession of no great value to appease someone whose main concerns or demands are not being met.) to unbelief. 

Craig Keener

The request for a sign (cf. 16:1-4; Jn 6:30) revealed the evil character of that "generation's" hearts (cf. 11:16; 16:4; Deut 32:5; Dalman 1929: 52-53); Jesus had already been providing signs, and his opponents were disputing their validity (12:22-24).

Jesus explains that his generation needs no greater sign that he is from

God than his own message. Jesus' second example is that Solomon's wisdom was enough to prove his divine appointment, and that a distant queen heard and came to him.

R. T. France

The demand is met rather by repeated (and indeed escalated) assertions of Jesus’ special status, in relation even to those who in the past have had a key role as mediators between God and his people, and by the warning that to fail to recognize where God is now at work is to risk ultimate condemnation. For so obvious an authority no sign is needed. It is not so much an answer as a counterchallenge. In the narrative context it clearly does not satisfy, as the demand will be repeated in 16:1, and Jesus’ repeated refusal of a sign then will mark the end of dialogue between him and the Galilean authorities. 

The idea of an authenticating “sign” (cf. John 6:30) has a good OT pedigree. In view of the OT precedent the request for a sign is not in itself objectionable, and indeed Jesus has already drawn attention to the evidential value of his miracles in 9:6; 11:4-6, 21, 23.

But Jesus dismisses the present request because of the attitude of those who have made it.

Their demand for a sign after so much clear evidence (note especially v. 28) betrays their fundamental opposition to God’s purpose as it is now focused in the ministry of Jesus.

Donald Hagner

The culpability of the Pharisees is now brought into even sharper focus. The request for a sign is only a further indication of their refusal of Jesus and his message. They had witnessed countless miracles pointing to the reality of the kingdom and the truth of Jesus’ proclamation and yet would not believe. They had been the recipients of far more evidence than had the Ninevites or the Queen of Sheba. Whereas the latter acted upon what little they knew, the Pharisees not only failed to accept what they saw, but they attributed it to the power of Satan.

As the narrative makes clear, however, the Pharisees had already witnessed numerous miracles of Jesus that had sign-bearing significance (cf. 11:4–5) yet had refused to acknowledge them. Indeed, as we have seen, they went so far as to attribute some of Jesus’ works to the power of Beelzebul. Now they ask to see a sign, presumably a miracle performed just for them, something that would amaze them while presenting irrefutable evidence that his claims were true (cf. particularly John 6:30). Yet this is precisely the kind of miracle—a demonstrative display of power for the purpose of impressing—that Jesus would not perform. His miracles were never done for the sake of creating an effect or of overpowering those who witnessed them; they were much more a part of his proclamation and thus designed solely to meet human needs. Even if Jesus had performed some astonishing sign for them, such was their unbelief, it is implied, that they probably would have charged Jesus with sorcery and thus have used it against him.

They had seen miracles already, only to reject them (in the Johannine idiom they had seen “signs” [σημεῖα] and had rejected them; John 7:31; 11:47–48). The problem was a deeper one (cf. vv 33–35), one within the scribes and Pharisees, and in fact no sign would be adequate to convince their unreceptive hearts. Thus Jesus responds, with a degree of irony, that no sign “will be given” to them

The request for a sign only becomes unjustified and intrinsically wrong when one is already surrounded by good and sufficient evidence one chooses not to accept. In that case, unreceptivity and unbelief are the root problem, and it is unlikely that any sign would be sufficient to change such a person’s mind. This is not to argue for gullibility or easy belief. The fact is, however, that Jesus’ contemporaries had plenty of evidence upon which to act responsibly. In a similar way, evidence of the truth of the gospel exists today both for unbelievers and believers. In these circumstances, to ask for more evidence, more signs, is to reflect a deep-seated unbelief in the reality of God and his grace

Robert Gundry

Since Jesus’ deeds have counted as “the deeds of the Christ” and “the deeds of wisdom” (11:2, 19), seeking for a sign different from those deeds counts as a rejection of them and justifies a description of the seekers as “evil and adulterous.”

The resultant escalation emphasizes that the request is an antagonistic riposte.

Summary of Answers:

I.  Jesus refused to do some types of miracles.  For a miracle  to be performed, some criteria must be met.  It must not be a demand.  It must not be for mere performance.  It must be for some felt need.  It must have a spiritual component.

II.  The demand for another miracle is wrong on account of how many miracles had already been performed. Jesus had provided them ample evidence of his divine appointment, which they still disputed.

III.  The Pharisees should have accepted Jesus’ message without any miracle at all.  The wisdom and content of his message should have been sufficient to prove his appointment.  

Drawing all of this to WLC’s points about divine hiddenness seems like it may be fruitful.  An increase in evidence would lead to more belief-that but not to more belief-in.