As promised in a
previous post, I am going to be responding to Muslim taqiyyist
Paul Williams’ blatant distortion of Mark’s Gospel in an attempt to once again
undermine the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. This time Williams focuses on Christ
gradually healing a blind man as reported in Mark 8:22-26 in order to show that Jesus cannot be
God in the flesh.
Here is what he says:
“There is an old, olde argument, now largely out of use in
Christian circles, that argues Jesus was God because he did amazing miracles.
Surprisingly, the argument has now been resurrected from ignominy by
certain Christians who frequent this blog… This is certainly the image of Jesus
we see portrayed in Hollywood films and in popular Christian fantasy. But there
are passages in the New Testament which portray Jesus in a very different
light. As a Christian I recall feeling a twinge of embarrassment when I came
across these stories…”
And after quoting the passage from Mark Williams decides to
provide his own spin on the text,
“So to recap the story: to effect a miracle Jesus spits in
the man’s face and puts his hands on the poor man’s eyes in a manner which
would have been familiar to healers in the ancient world. Jesus was not sure if
the spit had healed him so he asked the man if he could see anything. On
discovering that the cure was only partially successful, Jesus tries again and
this time he is successful – no doubt after a fervent prayer to God for the
healing miracle to be complete.
“This story, if true (we have no way of verifying its
authenticity), portrays Jesus in an utterly different light to Christian claims
that his miracles prove he is God. If anything this story demonstrates just the
opposite: Jesus is like the charismatic holy men who gradually, falteringly,
effect a cure.”
Suffice it to say, Williams’ blatant misreading of the text
raises many problems and further highlights the fact that this taqiyyist has no
business criticizing God’s Word, the Holy Bible.
In the first place, how does Williams know for certain that
it wasn’t Jesus’ intention to heal the blind man gradually? Does he have access
to the mind of Christ to tell us with absolute certainty that Jesus intended to
heal the blind instantaneously, upon the first touch? Did Williams ever bother
to think for a moment that perhaps it was’ Christ’s will for the man to
gradually receive his sight in order to use this as an example, an
illustration, of something else?
Contrast Williams’ misreading and manhandling of the text
with that of the noted Christian reformer and scholar John Calvin:
This miracle, which is omitted by the other two
Evangelists, appears to have been related by Mark chiefly on account of this
circumstance, that Christ restored sight to the blind man, not in an
instant, as he was generally accustomed to do, but in a gradual manner. He did so most probably for the
purpose of proving, in the case of this man, that he had full liberty as to his
method of proceeding, and was not restricted to a fixed rule, so as not to
resort to a variety of methods in exercising his power. On this account, he
does not all at once enlighten the eyes of the
blind man, and fit them for performing their office, but communicates to
them at first a dark and confused perception, and afterwards, by laying on his
hands a second time, enables them to see perfectly. And so the grace of Christ,
which had formerly been poured out suddenly on others, flowed by drops, as it
were, on this man. (Calvin’s Commentary on the Bible;
underline emphasis ours)
And compare William’s assault and criticism of the method
that the Lord Jesus used to heal the blind man with the attitude of this next
commentary:
“This miracle, found only in Mark, raises several
interesting questions. First, why did Jesus lead the man out of the town before healing him? Why didn’t He heal
by simply touching the man? Why use such unconventional means as saliva? Why didn’t
the man receive perfect sight immediately? (This is the ONLY cure in the
Gospels which took place in stages.) Finally, why did Jesus forbid the man
to tell about the miracle in
the town? Our Lord is
sovereign and is not obligated to account to us for His actions. There was a
valid reason for everything He did, even though we might not perceive it.
Every case of healing is different, as is every case of conversion. Some gain
remarkable spiritual sight as soon as they are converted. Others see dimly at first,
then later enter into full assurance of salvation.” (William MacDonald, Believer’s Bible Commentary,
ed. Art Farstad [Thomas Nelson Publishers, Inc., Nashville, TN 1990], p. 1340;
capital and underline emphasis ours)
This brings me to my second point. Williams forgot to
mention–either because he hasn’t read the context or chose to butcher it in
order assault the majestic and splendor of Christ–that this particular miracle
is placed immediately after the Lord Jesus’ severe rebuke of the disciples for
their failure to perceive and understand his message:
“And He left them, and getting into the boat again,
departed to the other side. Now the disciples had forgotten to take bread, and
they did not have more than one loaf with them in the boat. Then
He charged them, saying, ‘Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and
the leaven of Herod.’ And they reasoned among themselves, saying, ‘It isbecause
we have no bread.’ But Jesus, being aware of it, said to them, ‘Why do you reason
because you have no bread? Do
you not yet perceive nor understand? Is your heart still hardened? HAVING
EYES (ophthalmous), DO YOU NOT SEE (blepete)? And having ears, do you not hear? And do you not remember? When
I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of
fragments did you take up?’ They said to Him, ‘Twelve.’ Also, when I broke the
seven for the four thousand, how many large baskets full of fragments did you
take up?’ And they said, ‘Seven.’ So He said to them, ‘How is it you do
not understand?’ Then He came to Bethsaida; and they brought a blind
man to Him, and begged Him to touch him. So He took the blind
man by the hand and led him out of the town. And when He had spit on his eyes
and put His hands on him, He asked him if he saw (blepeis) anything. And
he looked up and said, ‘I see (blepo) men like trees, walking.’ Then He put His hands on HIS
EYES (tous ophthalmous autou) again and made him look up. And he was restored
and SAW (eneblepen) everyone clearly. Then He sent him
away to his house, saying, ‘Neither go into the town, nor tell anyone in the
town.’ Mark 8:13-26
Note the connection between Christ reprimanding the
disciples for having eyes and still not being able to see with the slow gradual
process of the blind man receiving his sight. It is obvious that the healing of
the blind man was meant to illustrate the slow gradual process of the
disciples’ perception of Jesus’ teachings.
In fact, this is a theme which is repeated all throughout
Mark’s Gospel since the Lord is depicted as having to constantly rebuke the
disciples for their lack of understanding:
“And He said to them, ‘He who has ears to hear, let him
hear!’ But when He was alone, those around Him with the twelve asked Him about
the parable. And He said to them, ‘To you it has been given to know the mystery
of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in
parables, so that “Seeing they may see and not perceive, And
hearing they may hear and not understand; Lest they should turn, And their sins be forgiven them.”’ And He said
to them, ‘Do you not understand this parable? How then will you
understand all the parables?’” Mark 4:9-13
“When He had entered a house away from the crowd, His
disciples asked Him concerning the parable. So He said to them,
‘Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not PERCEIVE that
whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because
it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thuspurifying all foods?’” Mark
7:17-19
“Then one of the crowd answered and said, ‘Teacher, I
brought You my son, who has a mute spirit. And wherever it
seizes him, it throws him down; he foams at the mouth, gnashes his teeth, and
becomes rigid. So I spoke
to Your disciples, that they should cast it out, but they could not.’ He answered him and said, ‘O faithless generation, how long
shall I be with you? How long shall I bear with you? Bring him to Me.’ Then they brought
him to Him. And when he saw Him, immediately the spirit convulsed him, and he
fell on the ground and wallowed, foaming at the mouth. So He asked his father,
‘How long has this been happening to him?’ And he said, ‘From childhood. And
often he has thrown him both into the fire and into the water to destroy him.
But if You can do anything, have compassion on us and help us.’ Jesus said to
him, ‘If you can believe, all things are possible to him who believes.’
Immediately the father of the child cried out and said with tears, ‘Lord, I
believe; help my unbelief!’ When Jesus saw that the people came running
together, He rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it: ‘Deaf and dumb spirit, I
command you, come out of him and enter him no more!’ Then the spirit cried out, convulsed him greatly, and
came out of him. And he became as one dead, so that many said, ‘He is dead.’ But
Jesus took him by the hand and lifted him up, and he arose. And when He had
come into the house, His disciples asked Him privately, ‘Why could we not cast
it out?’ So He said to them, ‘This kind can come out by nothing but prayer and
fasting.’ Then they departed from there and passed through Galilee, and He did
not want anyone to know it. For
He taught His disciples and said to them, ‘The Son of Man is being betrayed
into the hands of men, and they will kill Him. And after He is killed, He will
rise the third day.’ But they did not understand this
saying, and were afraid to ask Him.” Mark 9:17-32
This next one is quite interesting:
“In those days, the multitude being very great and having
nothing to eat, Jesus called His disciples to
Him and said to them, ‘I have
compassion on the multitude, because they have now continued with Me three days
and have nothing to eat. And if I send them away hungry to
their own houses, they will faint on the way; for some of them have come from
afar.’ Then His disciples
answered Him, ‘How can one satisfy these people with bread here in the
wilderness?’ He asked them, ‘How many loaves do you have?’ And they
said, ‘Seven.’ So He commanded the multitude to sit down on the ground. And He
took the seven loaves and gave thanks, broke them and gave them to His disciples to set before them; and they set them before the multitude. They
also had a few small fish; and having blessed them, He said to set them also
before them. So
they ate and were filled, and they took up seven large baskets of leftover
fragments. Now those who had eaten were about four thousand.
And He sent them away, immediately got into the boat with His
disciples, and came to the region of Dalmanutha.” Mark 8:1-9
The disciples’ response is rather perplexing when we keep
in mind that according to Mark 6:33-44 all of them had witnessed Jesus feeding
approximately 5,000 men not counting women and children with five loaves of
bread and two fish. They even managed to gather twelve baskets full of bread
and fish that had been left over from this miraculously feeding!
And yet despite all of these signs the disciples were still
unable to perceive the message and Person of Jesus.
It is therefore obvious in light of all of these examples
that Jesus deliberately healed the blind man’s sight gradually, instead of
instantaneously, as a way of illustrating the gradual spiritual perception of
the disciples who at first didn’t understand the things Jesus said and did.
This explanation is standard fare among the commentaries on
Mark, just as the following quotations illustrate:
“The importance of this story for Mark is that it anticipates the opening
of the eyes of the disciples. This is the second in a pair of incidents
that only Mark records (the first one is 7:24-37) and that fulfill the OT
messianic expectations of Isa 35:5-6. Mark uses both incidents to lead up to
the full revelation of Jesus' messianic dignity to the disciples (8:27-30). Their eyes too were opened, not by
human perception, but by the miracle of God's gracious revelation – which was
as much a miracle as the opening of the blind man's eyes." (Kenneth L.
Barker & John R. Kohlenberger III,Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary Volume
2: New Testament [Zondervan
Publishing House; Grand Rapids MI, 1994], p. 166; underline emphasis ours)
“The disciples had been blinded to spiritual truths by
their constant preoccupation with their own immediate bodily needs. It was only fitting therefore that
the next miracle should be the opening of the eyes of the physically blind man
of Bethsaida, as a picture of what God would yet do for them. It is also
fitting that 8:29, immediately below, should contain the account of the opening
of the eyes of Peter to the messiahship of Jesus, and that chapter 9 should
contain the story of the transfiguration. Of course, we are specifically told
that Jesus healed many blind in the course of His ministry (Lk. 7:21), but this
particular miracle is recorded only in Mark, naturally enough, if it occurred
in Bethsaida, the home town of Peter (Jn. 1:44), and if Mark, even indirectly,
depends on Petrine tradition. No name is recorded: with the exception of
Bartimaeus (10:46), such people are usually nameless in the gospels,
particularly Mark.” (R. Alan Cole, The
Gospel According to Mark (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), ed. Leon
Morris [Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI: Reprinted 1999],
p. 199; underline emphasis ours)
“In Mark's account of the healing of the blind man at
Bethsaida not only the climax of the story but the entire narrative is constructed
on the motif of 'seeing.' In English translations several of the words used for
sight are the same, but in the original Greek there are eight different words
used for nine instances of seeing in 8:23-25! The
redundancy of references to sight and seeing provides a counterbalance to the
redundancy of accusations of blindness and misunderstanding in the previous
story. Yet another link between this miracle and the previous story occurs in
the speech of Jesus to the blind man. At a miracle Jesus normally speaks an
authoritative word or makes a pronouncement. Here, however, he asks a question,
'"Do you see anything?''’ (v. 23).That unusual question looks like an
echo of Jesus' pleading questions of the disciples in the previous story, the
first of which was '"Do you still not see?"' (8:17). The blind
man's response that he can see people who 'look like trees walking around' (v.
24) is a clue that the
disciples themselves will be enabled by Jesus to begin the process of moving
from blindness to sight.
“The healing of the blind man of Bethsaida is the only
miracle in the Gospels that proceeds in stages rather than being instantly
effected. Matthew and Luke omit the miracle, likely because it suggested that
Jesus was unsuccessful on the first attempt. The necessity of repeated touches
cannot imply for Mark insufficiency on Jesus' part, however, since elsewhere Jesus performs more
difficult miracles (from a human perspective) without fail, such as healing the
Gerasene demoniac (5:1-20) or raising a dead girl (5:35-43). The two-stage
cure in the present miracle thus suggests a process of revelation – as much for the disciples, we
suspect, as for the blind man at Bethsaida. (James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark (The
Pillar New Testament Commentary)[Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand
Rapids, MI, 2002], pp. 243-244; bold emphasis ours)
"The touch of saliva and Jesus' hands (cf. 7:33)
conveyed His intentions and stimulated the blind man's faith. At first the
healing was only partial: He
looked up (cf. 8:25) and sawpeople (lit., "the men," perhaps
the Twelve) moving in a blur like
trees walking around.Jesus' unusual question, Do you see anything? indicated that THIS WAS
INTENTIONAL ON HIS PART (not a weakness in the man's faith). It was a fitting
follow-up TO HIS REBUKING THE DISCIPLES (vv. 17-21). The man was no longer
totally blind, but his sight was still poor. How
like him were the disciples!
"Then Jesus
put His hands on the man's eyes again.
He looked intently (fromdiablepo; v. 24 has a form of anablepo); his sight was restored, and he began to see (from emblepo) everything clearly. Now his
sight was perfect. This was
the outcome the disciples could anticipate despite difficulties in the process."
(John D. Grassmick, "Mark," The
Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck
(general editors) [David C Cook Distribution, Ontario, Canada 1983], p. 138;
capital and underline emphasis ours)
Even a liberal Bible translation, namely the St. Joseph
Edition of the New American Bible, which is a version that Williams’ guru in
dawah Shabir Ally highly recommends, states
the following:
* [8:22–26] Jesus’ actions and the gradual cure of the
blind man probably have the same purpose as in the case of the deaf man (Mk
7:31–37). Some commentators regard the cure as
an intended symbol of the gradual enlightenment of the disciples concerning
Jesus’ messiahship.
And here is what The
New Jerome Biblical Commentary, another liberal favorite of Shabir’s, says
concerning this miracle:
“… If any story in Mark HAS
A SYMBOLIC FUNCTION, IT IS THE HEALING OF THE BLIND MAN AT BETHSAIDA (8:22-26) (and the healing of
Bartimaeus [10:46-52]). On the way, Jesus will impress upon the disciples the
necessity of his death and resurrection. Nevertheless,
the disciples are slow to understand Jesus. In the case of the blind man of
Bethsaida, the coming to sight is gradual and imperfect; he does not follow
Jesus. Bartimaeus is healed immediately and follows Jesus on the way.
Describing these stories as ‘symbolic’ does not deny their basis in history,
nor does it mean that they were intended purely as allegorical statements…”
(Ibid., eds. Raymond E. Brown, S.S., Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S. J., Roland E.
Murphy, O. Carm. [Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 1990], p.
614; bold and capital emphasis ours)
That these commentators are correct, and that Jesus’
gradual healing of the blind man’s sight was deliberate, is further confirmed
by the following passage:
“Now they came to Jericho. As He went out of Jericho with
His disciples and a great multitude, blind Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, sat
by the road begging. And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began
to cry out and say, ‘Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!’ Then many warned
him to be quiet; but he cried out all the more, ‘Son of David, have mercy on
me!’ So Jesus stood still and commanded him to be called. Then they called the
blind man, saying to him, ‘Be of good cheer. Rise, He is calling you.’ And
throwing aside his garment, he rose and came to Jesus. So Jesus answered and
said to him, ‘What do you want Me to do for you?’ The blind man said to Him,
‘Rabboni, that I may receive my sight.’ Then Jesus said to him, ‘Go your way;
your faith has made you well.’ And
IMMEDIATELY he received his sight and followed Jesus on the road.” Mark
10:46-52
Notice that in the case of Bartimaeus he was healed of his
blindness instantaneously, which confirms that there was nothing lacking in the
power of Christ to immediately heal the other blind man if he wanted to do so.
Yet it is obvious from all of these examples that Jesus didn’t want the blind
man to be healed immediately, but slowly in order to illustrate the spiritual blindness
of his own followers who, like the blind man, only received their spiritual
sight gradually over time.
Now that we got Williams' deliberate manhandling of Mark
8:22-26 out of the way it is time to move on to
the next part of the discussion where I will show that Jesus’ miracles
do in fact prove that he is Yahweh God Incarnate
IHS
No comments:
Post a Comment