051. Chapter 30 - Miracles in Galilee

Chapter 30 - Miracles in Galilee Matthew 8:2-4,Matthew 8:14-17;Matthew 9:1-8;Mark 1:21-45;Mark 2:1-12;Luke 4:31-44;Luke 5:12-26 The Campaign in Galilee The contrast between the ministry of John the Baptist and that of Jesus was sharply defined and must have caused much discussion among the people. John had worked no miracles; Jesus began His Galilean ministry with an amazing series of miracles. The multitudes had gathered in the wilderness where John thundered against the sins of the nation and called them to repentance and baptism in preparation for the coming of the Messiah. But the excitement of the throngs that pressed forward to see and hear Jesus was unbounded. The miracles of this early stage of His Galilean ministry were centered in Capernaum for He made this His headquarters. When the excitement became too intense here, or the needs of the other parts of Galilee called Him, He left Capernaum to carry on swinging evangelistic campaigns in this whole section. But these tours ended as they had begun: in Capernaum. The healing of a demoniac in the synagogue on the Sabbath was followed by the miracle in the home of Peter when his wife’s mother was healed of a fever, and by the healing of a vast multitude afflicted with all kinds of diseases as they were brought to Him after sunset. An extended campaign through Galilee followed. The healing of a leper created such excitement that Jesus had to withdraw into desert sections lest the Zealots, who were eager for a leader to enable them to throw off the yoke of Rome, should attempt to seize His movement and start a war. Even in the desert the people flocked to Him. When the excitement began to subside in the center of population because of His continued absence, Jesus returned to Capernaum and began further instruction of the people, striving to turn them from their worldly, warlike ambitions to His spiritual program. As soon as it was known that He had reappeared in Capernaum, immediately the crowd gathered in such numbers that a paralytic carried by four friends had to be taken to the top of the house and let down through a hole in the roof in order to get him to Jesus. The Order of Events

We cannot be sure of the exact order of such events as are known to us from this section of Jesus’ ministry. John gives no record of it. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all differ in their arrangement. The Scripture is arranged at the head of this chapter in the order in which most harmonies attempt to fit the events together. It follows the order of Mark, but it is by no means certain that this is the chronological order. None of the writers declares his order to be chronological. Luke affirms he has written “in orderly fashion” (Luke 1:3), but this does not necessarily mean strict chronological order; it may only mean a logical presentation of the current of Jesus’ ministry without the effort to place each minute detail in its order of time. Luke follows in general a chronological arrangement of events, but it is evident he does not carry this out in unimportant details. Matthew seems to have used a topical arrangement in this early section of Jesus’ ministry for he groups together examples of the teaching of Jesus and of His miracles. This is just as logical and effective a biographical method as an arrangement of everything in exact order of time. Since Mark records so little of the teaching of Jesus during this period of His ministry and tells a succession of miracles, it seems more probable that his arrangement is more likely to be in order of time and for this reason it is usually followed in comparing the accounts. But the student who is interested in testing out the modernistic theory of the origin of the Gospels from two common sources, will find that a careful study of the variations in the order of such events as the three have in common furnishes strong evidence that they wrote independently. If they copied from one another or from common sources, what intelligent reason can be given for their amazing variations in the arrangement of events? We cannot even be sure that the miraculous catch of fish, which we have just studied in a parallel arrangement with the call of the fishermen by the sea, occurred at the same time, for Luke tells of the first miracles in Capernaum and the first tour of Galilee before he relates the miracle of the catch of fish.

Problem of Demon Possession The preaching of Jesus in the synagogue at Capernaum astonished the people because of the authority with which He spoke. Both Mark and Luke call attention to this. He spoke with authority in His own right and power instead of quoting the authority of the Old Testament or of the famous rabbinical teachers of the day as did the scribes. He spoke with the authority of God, presuming to make new revelation, to forgive sins, and to offer salvation. The miracle that followed this Sabbath day sermon in Capernaum illustrates what is meant by the authority with which He spoke. There was in the synagogue a man with an unclean spirit — literally “in an unclean spirit” — in the power of a demon. The origin and exact nature of these emissaries of the devil are unknown to us. In the time of Jesus they took possession of men, and inflicted bodily ills and mental torture. They do not seem to have the power to possess men today. The gospel of Christ sets men free from the bondage of the devil. Some think that the demons who possessed men in the time of Jesus were the spirits of evil men returned to earth in the service of the devil. But there is no proof that the dead thus returned to influence the living and this theory seems to have the flavor of spiritualism. It is more probable that these demons are fallen angels cast out of heaven when the devil revolted against God and that they still are doing the service of the devil (Jude 1:6). This scene in the synagogue at Capernaum, where Jesus met this man afflicted with a demon and cast the demon out, suggests the inevitable conflict between God and Satan. Immediately after the baptism, the devil met Jesus in mortal combat. Upon beginning His ministry Jesus began to push the irrepressible encounter. This demon recognized Jesus and the nature of the crisis, for he cried out in the synagogue: “What have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? Art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.” Jesus silenced the demon. He consistently refused to let the demons testify to His divine personality for the following reasons: (1) He was not ready for an open revelation of His deity. (2) Jesus did not need the devil to testify for Him. (3) It would not have been effective, since the devil is a liar. (4) It would have given grounds for the scribes and Pharisees to push their charge that He was in league with the devil. Instead of permitting the demon to testify, Jesus rebuked him and cast him out of the man.

Modernistic Denial of Demons The modernists deny the existence of demons as they do that of angels. Their denial of the existence of the devil and of God is only the natural extreme of their rejection of the repeated accounts in the Scriptures of the work of the devil and his demons. It is plain at a glance that the theory which explains demon possession as insanity denies completely the historic testimony of the Gospels. The demons recognized Jesus by their supernatural power; they addressed Jesus and were addressed by Him; they were cast out by Him. The difficulties for those who deny the reality of demon possession are insuperable. Plummer offers the following unassailable analysis of the problem: “In considering the question of demoniacal possession we must never lose sight of the indisputable fact, that our sources of information clearly, consistently, and repeatedly represent Christ as healing demoniacs by commanding demons to depart out of the afflicted persons. The Synoptic Gospels uniformly state that Jesus went through the form of casting out demons. If the demons were there, and Christ expelled them and set their victims free, there is nothing to explain: the narrative is in harmony with the facts. If the demons were not there and demoniacal possession is a superstition, we must choose between three hypotheses. (1) Jesus did not employ this method of healing those who were believed to be possessed, but the Evangelists have erroneously attributed it to Him. (2) Jesus did employ this method and went through the form of casting out demons, although He knew that there were no demons there to be cast out. (3) Jesus did employ this method and went through the form of casting out demons, because in this matter He shared the erroneous belief of His contemporaries” (Commentary on Luke, p. 136).

Balmforth’s Non-Committal Discussion The effort to explain away demon possession as cases of dual personality is equally impossible. It denies the existence of demons and thus tears the Gospels to ribbons. The manifest absurdity of the theory of a dual personality is seen in the case of the Gadarene demoniac who, according to this theory, was afflicted with four or five thousand (a legion) dual personalities! A commentary on Luke (1930) by an English scholar named Balmforth contains a lengthy discussion of the problem of demon possession. The author declares inadequate both the testimony of the New Testament for the existence of demons and the current, radical explanations which deny the existence of demons. “Medical science interprets the phenomena formerly attributed to demoniac possession in purely physical or psycho-physical terms, either as due to organic lesion or functional disturbance of the brain, or as caused by mental obsessions, unconscious conflicts, disassociation of personality...and the like. Yet there are several considerations which should make us hesitate to reject altogether the idea that non-human spirits exist and that in certain circumstances they may enter into human affairs. (1) On a theistic, or indeed any spiritual view of the universe, it is unlikely that man is the only product of the cosmic process. (2) The experience of educated European missionaries in heathen countries today leads them again and again to go back to the belief in demon-possession as the only hypothesis that will fit certain facts in the life of their heathen neighbors. (3) The lack of evidence of demoniac possession in Christian countries may be explained by their acceptance of the Christian faith and the operation of the Spirit: the triumph of Christ over the demons of which the early Christians were so convinced, would produce that result. (4) The mysterious hinterland behind the surface consciousness of everyday life is hardly known at all. We cannot rule out beforehand the possibility of spiritual intelligences being able to affect it by entry from without. On the whole, we can say that more evidence is desirable, and that the verdict at present should be ‘not proven” (Commentary on Luke (1930), p. 146). Was Jesus Ignorant and Mistaken?

Throughout his commentary, Balmforth tends to state both the radical and conservative views and to declare his own position as neutral and non-committal. Having declared that the testimony of Jesus and the New Testament writers is not sufficient to convince him of the reality of demon possession, he then proceeds to defend his position as entirely compatible with belief in Jesus as the Son of God. “On such questions He appropriately employed the ideas inculcated by His environment and education. This is as necessary to a true incarnation as His birth of a woman, His helpless infancy, His liability to fatigue, disappointment, hunger, and bodily death. None of. these things are appropriate to a mere apotheosis: but none of them conflict with His moral perfection or His spiritual dignity as the living Sacrament of ultimate spiritual Reality” (Commentary on Luke (1930)., p. 147). Can He be the Son of God if He Taught That Which is False? As he attempts to defend himself against the charge of denying the historical veracity of the Gospels or the deity of Christ, he offers an argument which is plainly built to answer the dilemma of Plummer. He chooses the alternative of declaring that Jesus was ignorant in regard to demons. If demons do not exist, then it is possible and proper to affirm that Jesus thought they existed, but He was just ignorant and mistaken concerning the facts. He holds such a view is entirely compatible with belief that Jesus is the Son of God and that it is no harder to conceive that Jesus was the Son of God and yet ignorant concerning the true nature of demons than that He was the Son of God and yet was a little, helpless baby in the care of His mother and that He suffered and died. Now just what is the possible connection between the two things he attempts to lay parallel? The Gospels affirm that Jesus is the Son of God and yet was born into this world a helpless infant. They also affirm that Jesus declared that He did not know the time of His second coming. Had the Gospels made no mention of Jesus’ talking with demons and casting them out and affirmed that Jesus said He did not know whether demons existed or not, then this limitation also would be compatible with belief in Him as the Son of God. But the things which Balmforth compares are as far apart as the poles. The Scripture expressly affirms that Jesus accepted human limitations in being born into the world as an infant and that He admitted He was in ignorance as to the time of His second coming, but in neither of these is there anything which caused Jesus to falsify the truth and to mislead men. Where limitations of the flesh were His, He did not attempt to deny them. But if He claimed to have knowledge and power which He did not possess, if He solemnly declared and proved the existence of demons, when they do not exist, then He taught and claimed that which was false. If He was in ignorance in regard to these matters concerning the spirit world, then there is no certain truth or authority to any of His declarations concerning the devil, hell, heaven, and God Himself; and the whole structure of Christian faith collapses. The Gospel writers repeatedly affirm that Jesus claimed to have personal knowledge of the existence of demons and that He exercised authority over them in casting them out. Is it possible to claim that Jesus repeatedly stated that which was false, and pretended to have knowledge and power He did not possess and yet is the Son of God? Such crooked and perverse reasoning is characteristic of the sophistry of the modernists. If Jesus falsely declared that demons exist, whether in ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation, then it either is true that He is not the Son of God sent into the world to reveal the truth, or that God is the author of falsehood and there is no such thing as truth.

Miracles in the Home of Peter The authority with which Jesus spoke is illustrated in the following stage of the narrative by the marvelous way in which He rebuked the fever and healed Peter’s wife’s mother. They told Jesus of her as soon as they returned from the synagogue. Jesus “stood over her and rebuked the fever” (Luke) and “took her by the hand and raised her up” (Mark). Jesus was accustomed thus to accompany a miraculous cure by a solemn declaration and by throwing out a challenge to the sufferer to believe in Him and His power to heal, and then to assist the faith by such a gesture as Mark describes. The multitudes waited until sunset because the tradition of the elders interpreted the command to do no work on the Sabbath day as meaning, among other things, that they could not carry a burden on the Sabbath. As soon as the Sabbath was ended they came in great crowds bringing their sick to be healed What a beautiful picture this furnishes of the close of this first great Sabbath day of His Galilean ministry. The Prayer Life of Jesus

Mark records that at the close of this day of exciting and exhausting ministry, “in the morning, a great while before day, he rose up and went out, and departed into a desert place, and there prayed.” The ministry of Jesus, so full of startling effects upon the multitudes, had also its effect upon Him. As He began to give Himself unremittingly to the service of the sick and the dying, to men and women lost in sin, He began to feel the pressure and to seek help from God in long nights of prayer. Such had doubtless been His custom through His youth. But now there was a double necessity. Nothing devours the vital energies like such a ministry to suffering, perplexed and despairing humanity. But this season of prayer on the night after this victorious Sabbath in Capernaum is characteristic of the whole ministry of Jesus. The pressure of His ministry, instead of causing Him to neglect His communion with the Father, had the opposite effect as He sought help and strength. Sometimes when some preacher brings shame upon the church by a glaring moral downfall, his friends attempt to pity and excuse him by saying: “Poor man, he was so busy visiting the sick and the needy and helping to save the lost people about him, that he did not have time to guard and care for his own life.” But no man has any right to become so busy helping other people that he neglects the elemental moral and religious structure of his own life. Daniel Webster declared the greatest thought which had ever entered his mind was: “My individual responsibility to Almighty God.” We delight to sing the hymn, “Others.”

Lord, let me live from day to day, In such a self-forgetful way, That even when I kneel to pray, My prayer shall be for others.

There is, however, a very high and holy sense in which we are obligated to pray: “Lord, let me live from day to day, In such a self-dedicated way, That even when I kneel to pray, My prayer shall be for myself — that I may humbly confess my own weakness and sin before contemplating the moral failures of others, that I may zealously dedicate my time, my strength, my all to Christ before presuming to urge others to do so.” We can be sure that Jesus, as He prayed through the cold morning hours out under the stars, offered many an urgent petition for His disciples and the restless, worldly multitudes. But we also know enough about the prayer-life of Jesus to be sure that He prayed most earnestly for His own purity of soul and for the victorious life in all the trying circumstances that each day brought to Him. The sinlessness of Jesus stands out in the boldest contrast with our continual failure to live a life of righteousness and unselfish service for Christ. But the contrast of achievement in His character and ours is not greater than the contrast of His continual, intense, soul-searching prayer-life and our persistent refusal to use the communion with God which is always available.

Criticisms of Jesus The sinlessness of Jesus does not mean that He was never charged with sin. The Gospels relate with the utmost frankness the repeated criticisms of His conduct and speech. These criticisms came mainly from His enemies. This mighty outburst of evangelism, which stirred all Galilee with miracles and thrilling sermons, brought forth bitter criticism from unbelieving Jewish leaders who saw their leadership of the nation imperilled and the hypocrisy and baseness of their pretended piety uncovered before the nation. But in each case where charges were brought against Jesus, these charges were shown to be either malicious or mistaken. But charges were made or implied against Jesus by His friends as well as His enemies. The rebuke which Mary offered to the boy Jesus in the temple when He was twelve years old is a good illustration. Jesus, however, corrected her inadequate understanding of His nature and obligations He was God’s Son and must do first of all God’s will as the Father was revealing it to Him. Another illustration of criticism by a friend is implied in the manner in which Simon and the other disciples found Christ in the desert after this flight of prayer and protested against His secret and inexplicable departure from Capernaum. It is not hard to imagine the fearful perplexity and rising indignation of Peter as he viewed the synagogue in Capernaum packed to suffocation, awaiting the preacher — but the great Prophet was late for the service! All the reverence of Simon for his Master and his desire to shield Him from criticism seems pent up in the rushing words of salutation, surcharged with deep emotion, with which he greeted Jesus when he finally discovered Him in the desert: “All are seeking thee.” The calm reply of Jesus makes clear His defense. He not only has done no wrong in disappointing the excited multitudes awaiting Him in Capernaum; He does not even now intend to return. He plans to go elsewhere in Galilee campaigning through the cities and towns. In this, as in all else, He is obeying the direct commands of God. A better understanding of the rising conflict between the worldly ideals of the excited multitudes seeking to turn the movement of Jesus into military channels, and the heavenly program of spiritual redemption which Jesus, the Son of God, offers the nation, will cause Peter to see how hasty and foolish were his critical reflections upon the conduct of his Master.

Jesus and the Leper The campaign which carried Jesus through the cities of Galilee brought great throngs from all over Syria and Palestine. Multitudes were healed and the kingdom of God proclaimed to them. The healing of a leper is recorded as a most striking example of the healing ministry of Jesus. It occurred in an unnamed city. The great faith of the leper caused him to approach Jesus in spite of the fact that he had to enter the city to do so. It led him to fall on his face before Him and worship Him, and to appeal with strong assurance: “Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.” How much agonized reflection on the part of the leper was compressed into these few words with which he made his appeal! He was absolutely sure that Jesus had the power to heal him, Dared he hope that the love of Jesus could reach to even an outcast leper? With what inimitable grace Jesus revealed both His love and power as He touched the leper in token of His boundless sympathy and invincible power! It is idle to reflect that Jesus had the right under the Old Testament law to touch a leper, since He was a priest after the order of Melchizedek, and that the law, while strictly forbidding any to touch a leper, yet gave the priests the right to examine them in cases of readmittance to society. Jesus was the Great Physician who could heal all the world’s diseases. He would not contract or transmit the man’s leprosy; His touch would rather heal with the instantaneous power of God. Jesus towered above the Old Testament law even as He came to deliver the supreme and final revelation from heaven, acting and speaking with the absolute authority of the Son of God. Jesus did not have to approach God through Moses to discover His will; His contact with God was immediate and absolute; His obedience to God was perfect.

Nature of Leprosy

Great effort is made by modernists to show that the leprosy of the Bible which Jesus repeatedly healed was not really the terrible Elephantiasis which man has viewed through the years as contagious and fatal. The world of medicine still wrestles with leprosy, seeking to determine if it be necessarily contagious or incurable. Meanwhile the skeptics scoff at the miraculous healings of leprosy by Jesus as the psychological cure of some minor skin ailment. But the pathetic condition of the lepers Christ met fits exactly the loathsome disease which has been known through the centuries and which one may see today in the East devouring the face and the hands and feet of victims, joint by joint. The fact that the Old Testament made provision for the examination of lepers for readmission to society is not proof that the leprosy of the Bible was an insignificant skin disease and not leprosy, for this provision of the law had as its objective the discrimination, after a due season of segregation, between those actually afflicted with leprosy and those who had only suspicious-looking skin disorders. Moreover, the disease of leprosy was cured by miracles in both the Old and New Testament times, and the purpose of provision of the law for readmission into society thus was clearly illustrated. The Bible does not affirm that leprosy was contagious and fatal. But it suggests how terrible the disease was when it shows that the lepers were segregated and forced to give deadly warning: “Unclean! Unclean!” The Bible shows clearly whether leprosy was the horrible Elephantiasis or a minor skin trouble in the amazed exclamation of King Ahab when he read the appeal of the king of Syria: “I have sent Naaman my servant to thee, that thou mayest recover him of his leprosy. And it came to pass when the king of Israel had read the letter, that he rent his clothes, and said, Am I God to kill and to make alive, that this man doth send unto me to recover a man of his leprosy?” (2 Kings 5:6, 2 Kings 5:7). The statement of Naaman in 2 Kings 5:18 does not necessarily imply that the king of Syria had been leaning upon Naaman’s hand in the temple of Rimmon while he had been afflicted with leprosy, but only that Naaman would have this customary part in the heathen ritual now that he was restored to health. The curse of leprosy on Gehazi is represented as something terrible beyond all description (2 Kings 5:27). The momentary leprosy of Moses inflicted and cured by the placing of his hand in his boson’ at God’s command is described as a prodigious miracle and not as the mere appearance and disappearance of a trifling skin disorder (Exodus 4:6, Exodus 4:7). The leprosy of the Old and New Testament is the same, for the cases in the New Testament are presented without differentiating them from those in the Old Testament. Jesus classed His miracles of healing lepers along with the most impressive signs He worked: “Go, and tell John the things which ye hear and see: the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up” (Matthew 11:4, Matthew 11:5). The modernist would render this: “The lame walk, minor skin disorders are healed, the deaf hear and the dead are raised up”! Alongside the effort to deny the seriousness of the disease is the skeptical theory that what Christ actually did was to pronounce clean a leper who had already recovered from the disease in order to save him the long and difficult journey to Jerusalem. This contradicts and makes ridiculous the whole narrative with the pathetic appeal of the man who was “full of leprosy” and the clear declaration of Jesus: “I will; be thou made clean”; the statement “immediately the leprosy departed from him”; and the strict command of Jesus that he should go now and show himself to the priests, as Moses commanded. The modernists delight to describe such theories as the process of “rationalizing the miracles.” What a clever and subtle way of saying “denying the miracles.” The miracles do not need to be “rationalized.” This is more than can be said for the modern theories advanced to deny the miracles. Disbelief in God is the height of the irrational. Fundamentally, the attacks on the miracles arise out of disbelief in God. When the creation is exalted above the Creator and the world declared to be under the rule of force and law rather than subject to the will of a divine Person; when God is reduced to the stature of a mere superman; when His existence is denied by affirming that “God is an idea”; then those who have accepted such irrational conceptions feel obligated to explain away the miracles. The Command not to Report the Miracle

Two commands were given to the leper. “See thou tell no man.” The man did not obey this command but told of his cure with the result that the excitement of the people knew no bounds. Jesus had to withdraw into the desert places. Even here the throngs followed. Would such excitement result from the curing of a minor skin disorder? The man was doubtless so overjoyed at his recovery that he could not contain himself. His gratitude to Jesus was greater than his desire to obey the command to be silent. The people who saw the miracle also must have helped to spread the news. Some suggest that Jesus commanded the man not to tell of it because He knew it would make him tell it all the more. This is manifestly absurd. It reverses the ideal of Jesus that He would have obedience rather than sacrifice. It would make Jesus resort to a miserable subterfuge to raise excitement and secure popularity that was detrimental to His ministry. It would have Jesus invite the man to disobedience to secure His own ends. The text shows clearly why He desired to have the man refrain from telling of the miracle. The intense excitement which resulted drove Him into the wilderness. He had to keep the healing ministry from crowding out His preaching, else His campaign would degenerate into a “social gospel” for the bodies of men that would leave their souls untouched. The people had to be kept in a state of mind where excitement would not outrun their calm judgment. A study of the Zealot movement which was so powerful in Galilee at this time shows how the province was aflame with the expectation of a political Messiah who would raise an army and deliver the nation from bondage to Rome. The slightest encouragement from Jesus would be all that was necessary to touch a spark to the Zealot movement and lead to a bloody outbreak against Rome. The question may still be asked as to why He gave such a command to a man when He knew before He gave it that the man would not obey. Several reasons are apparent: (1) It was the regular course He pursued in seeking to suppress the excitement over extraordinary miracles. (2) The enthusiastic publication of such miracles by those who had been healed might have been much more extensive, but for His command to silence. (3) The command would assist the man in obeying the other injunction to go to the priests and fulfill the Old Testament law for purification. The two commands fitted together. The man might have conceived that gratitude to Jesus, as shown in the publication of the miracle, superseded the fulfillment of the ceremonial requirements. The Leper Sent to the Priests The narratives indicate three main reasons why the man was sent to the priests. (1) It was commanded in the law. The fact that Jesus had touched him might have inclined him to disregard the required regulations. The strict command of Jesus made him feel his obligation to keep the Old Testament law. (2) It was for his cleansing. The priests were the health officers to supervise the reception of such a person back into society. His own future would require the fulfillment of the law. (3) It was for the sake of the priests: “for a testimony unto them.” The priests, as well as the other national leaders, did not believe in Jesus. Sending the man to them thrust the miracle into their very presence. Thus He tried to keep the man silent among the multitudes whose interest needed no stimulation, and to send him directly to the priests who needed to be confronted by the miracle. Thus the man was sent to the priests for his own sake and for theirs, that he might be received back into society and that they, through faith, might be received of God. This miracle marks a climax in this early stage of Jesus’ Galilean ministry, for the intense excitement over such a great miracle caused Jesus to withdraw from the centers of population to the desert until the excitement had subsided. Even in the desert the multitudes sought Him out.