Matthew xiii. 58.
And he did not many mighty works there, because of their unbelief.
There were two things, I observed, very remarkable in the conduct of our blessed Saviour towards the Jews. One was, that he chose to instruct the more ignorant and uninformed of them, in the obscure way of parable: The other, that he wrought but few miracles for the conviction of such of them as were incredulous and unbelieving.
These two circumstances may be thought strange; because the less informed the people were to whom he addressed himself, the more need there seems to have been of the plainest instruction; and the less disposed they were to believe in him, the greater necessity we may think there was for subduing their unbelief by the force of miracles. Yet the conduct of Jesus was not according to these expectations, in either instance; and has accordingly furnished the occasion of TWO corresponding objections to his divine character and mission.
To the former of these objections, that which respects his way of speaking by parables, I have already replied in a distinct discourse on that subject. The latter, which respects his way of working miracles, I now propose to consider.
The text, you see, points out the subject, and confines me to it. Jesus, in discharge of his general office, and from a principle, as we may suppose, of private affection, went into his own country, that is, to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, with the intention of preaching the Gospel there, and of giving the people of that place the proper proofs of his authority and mission. Accordingly, the sacred historian tells us, he taught them in their synagogue; And we know, besides, that he wrought some miracles; for the people were astonished and said, Whence hath this man this WISDOM, and these MIGHTY WORKS?
They were the more astonished, because Jesus was no stranger to them; and the rest of his family, people of an obscure condition, then lived among them. They knew him only under the idea of a Carpenter’s Son, and they had observed perhaps nothing extraordinary him; or, if they had, this very circumstance, as is not uncommon among neighbours and countrymen, might have infused some jealousy and dislike of him. Be that as it will, their prejudices against him were extreme, and they expressed them in the most contemptuous manner. Is not this, say they, the Carpenter’s Son? Is not his Mother called Mary? and his Brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his Sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? And they were offended in him. To these disparaging questions, which easily overpowered the evidence of conviction even from their own senses, Jesus only replied, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house. And then the text follows, which says, And he did not many mighty works there, because of their unbelief.
This is the FACT: And the question upon it, is, Why Jesus forebore to work miracles among these people, because they did not believe in him?
Before I reply distinctly to this question, permit me to premise two general observations; one, on the use of miracles, considered in themselves; and the other, on the use of miracles, as applied to the Christian dispensation.
First, then, I observe, that, a miracle being, for the time, an alteration or suspension of the laws of nature, our best ideas of the divine attributes lead us to conclude, that this violence on his own plan of government is only exerted for some very important end, and will be exerted no farther, nor oftener, than is necessary to that end. It is true, it may be difficult for us to judge, in many cases, of that importance, and of that necessity; but unless both be very apparent to us, in no case, can we be authorized to require or even expect, a continuance or repetition, much less a multiplication of these miraculous exertions. To judge otherwise on this subject, would be to charge God foolishly, and, in effect, to blaspheme his wisdom.
Secondly, I observe, that the use of miracles, as applied to the Christian dispensation, is to give credit to the character and pretensions of Jesus. It is supposed in this argument that miracles, duly circumstanced and fully attested, are sufficient to this purpose; but there is no reason to suppose that more or greater will be wrought, than that purpose requires.
These things being premised, to the question, Why Jesus did not many miracles, before the unbelieving Jews of Nazareth, I reply directly by saying
I. In the first place, because such a display of his power was not necessary to their conviction. I mean not to say at present, that more or greater miracles would not have convinced them (though it be very unlikely, that they would), but that they were not necessary to the end proposed by them, which was to afford such an attestation to the character of Jesus as might be a reasonable and, in itself, a sufficient ground of their conviction. More than this the Jews had no right to expect. And less than this was not offered: For when it is said, that Jesus did not many miracles at Nazareth, it is implied that he did some; and thus much they confess themselves in asking, whence hath this man these mighty works?
Now some miracles, nay one single miracle, seen and confessed as such, was a reasonable ground of conviction. More therefore could not be esteemed necessary, that is, were not required to furnish the fit and proper means of such conviction. Without doubt, God, if he had been so pleased, might have shattered and confounded all the elements, and have driven the men of Nazareth, and even the Jewish Sanhedrim itself, by the force and terror of his almighty power, into an unwilling acknowledgment of his Son, Jesus. But this is not the way in which he treats his reasonable creatures, even when he exceeds the ordinary methods of his providence. He does that which is simply fit and right, in respect of the end he has in view, and leaves the rest to ourselves. This, as far as we know, is the universal mode of God’s government, and as far as we can judge, is the most worthy of him.
Still, it will be said, though Jesus was not obliged to do more for the conviction of these unbelievers, though more or greater miracles could not strictly be required of him, yet so limited a display of his power on such an occasion seemed penurious, and even unkind. A little more zeal, and some supernumerary wonders, might have better expressed his concern for his unhappy countrymen. I reply then,
II. In the second place, that as more or greater miracles were not necessary to the end of giving a just proof of his mission, so they were most probably not expedient to any other good end, but, on the contrary, would have been hurtful and pernicious to his unbelieving countrymen.
We have reason to conclude thus, if we consider that the same prejudices, which obstructed their conviction from some confessed miracles, would not have given way to more. We have an example in the other unbelieving Jews, especially in the rulers of that people, who, the more and greater miracles they saw performed by Jesus, were the more hardened in their unbelief, and the more exasperated against him. They even give it as a reason for their vindictive prosecution of him, that he did, and was doing many miracles[149].
Taking the matter then in this light, what other effect could a waste of miracles have had, but to heap guilt and vengeance upon their heads? By leaving these perverse people to themselves, perhaps their prejudices might subside, and they might yield in time to the evidence they already had, or they might submit to other evidence, which they should collect for themselves hereafter. To have irritated their prejudices, now, by further miracles, might have fixed them absolutely in unbelief.
This conclusion becomes the more probable, if we admit the pretensions of Jesus: For then he may be supposed to have certainly foreseen the present impracticability of converting these men, and to have restrained his power before them, on that account. But I am now arguing with those, who make this conduct an objection to his pretensions. I offer it therefore as a conclusion only very probable from the nature of the thing, that his not doing many miracles before his unbelieving countrymen, was, among other motives, from a principle of mercy and kindness to them. At least, the contrary, I think, cannot be affirmed with any shew or colour of reason.
But whatever kindness our Lord might have for these men, his continuing to work more miracles among them, under the present circumstances, would have been improper, because
III. In the next place (and this is my third answer to the objection) this conduct would have opposed, and tended directly to defeat, the general end and success of his ministry.
The proper END of his ministry was to preach salvation to the Jews, and to give them such evidence of his being the Messiah, as was sufficient to their conviction. When he had done this in one place, if no very important considerations induced his longer stay, he was to proceed to another. This was so essential a part of his office, that it seems not to have been forgotten, even when there was no peculiar complaint of unbelief, in those with whom he had resided. For when the people of another place, of more faith, as it should seem, came to him, and would have stayed him, that he should not depart from them, He refused to comply with them, and said, I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also, for THEREFORE AM I SENT[150].
This then was the end of his ministry. He was to preach the word; but was not obliged to see that it took effect, or to wait the success of it. How repugnant then had it been to this end, to waste unnecessary time and power on unbelieving Nazareth, when so many other cities, and those better disposed, claimed their share of each!
But, further, the dispositions of these people towards him were such, as seemed likely, not only to retard and interrupt, but totally to prevent the execution of his ministry. They would either have found means, had he continued longer with them, to deliver him into the hands of the Jewish rulers, or by some act of violence would have taken away his life. This appears from the rage with which they drove him out of their city, and from their purpose, as St. Luke relates the story, to cast him down headlong from the brow of the hill, whereon their city was built[151]. So that his attempt to convert them by more miracles, might have put an untimely end to his ministry, when it was now but little more than begun. And, though this event might at any time have been prevented by an exertion of his miraculous power, and without doubt would have been prevented in that manner, had the conjuncture made it necessary; yet this was no reason for his exposing himself to that danger, since, as we before observed, miracles are not to be expected or employed, where the end in view may be accomplished by human means. Accordingly, our Saviour consulted his own safety on all occasions during the course of his ministry, by every prudential method: And when he afterwards armed his disciples with the power of working miracles, he prescribed the same conduct to them, and, when they found themselves persecuted in one city, bade them flee to another[152]. It is generally thought, indeed, that nothing but a miracle rescued him out of the hands of the enraged people of Nazareth. If so, his danger among them must have been extreme, and shews the necessity of his removing from them. However, if this last miracle was wrought, it was one more added to the number of those he had worked in that city, and, like all the rest, was lost upon it. On the whole, it appears certain then, that the unbelief of these Nazarenes was a just reason for Christ’s not doing many miracles among them, since the opposite conduct would have tended to defeat the end and execution of his general office.
Still, the most direct and convincing answer to the objection is behind: For,
IV. Lastly, I observe that Jesus did not many miracles before the unbelieving men of Nazareth, because such a display of his power would have been contrary to a general rule of conduct, which he prescribed to himself, and that, on the highest reason.
This rule was, not to work a miracle upon them, or for them, who were deficient in faith: By which term, faith, I do not mean a grounded faith in him, as the Messiah, (for that could only be produced originally by miracles) but such an honesty and probity of mind as might dispose them to believe on the evidence of miracles. It was in this case, as in that of Parables, to him only who hath, more was given. And therefore the first question be put to those, who repaired to him for a miraculous relief of their necessities, was, Do Ye believe? Are ye withheld by no fixed and willful prejudices from supposing that one, coming to you under the character of the Messiah, is empowered to do this for you, or from yielding to its evidence, when it is done? This was so indispensable a rule with him, that St. Mark, in relating this adventure at Nazareth, goes so far as to say that he COULD NOT DO many mighty works there because of their unbelief[153]. The meaning of which is, that there was, no natural indeed, but a moral impossibility of his working more miracles there; that is, he could not do it, consistently with the general principles, on which he acted.
And that these principles were founded in the best reason, no man can doubt who reflects, that the highest possible favour, which can be conferred on man, that is, a miracle wrought for his salvation, reasonably supposes some degree of desert, some prior dispositions to profit by it; who reflects farther, that, where such a preparation of mind is not, the miracle is thrown away; nay, worse than that, can only serve to the hurt and condemnation of that person, on whom, or for whom it is performed.
Men have a strange notion, that when God intends to convince any one by the evidence of miracles, he should repeat and enforce that evidence, till it take effect, whether we will or not; nay, that the most obstinate and determined infidelity is only a stronger reason for his contending with it. But this is a very presumptuous, as well as injurious, conception of the divine nature: It is presumptuous in the highest degree, because it supposes that we have a right to prescribe terms to infinite power and wisdom: It is greatly injurious to the Supreme Being, because it supposes that he has no regard to the moral worth of his creatures, or even to any reasonable end, in the wonders he does for them. The Scriptures represent this matter in another light: they require something, where much is given; they expect from us to have, before we receive; they suppose us in short to be moral agents, and not machines. And our Lord himself, speaking in the proverbial language of the Jews, gives it as a special command to his Disciples, Not to cast that which is holy unto dogs, not to cast their pearls before swine[154]. All this is agreeable to our best notions of the divine wisdom and goodness, as well as to the usual course of God’s providence; and therefore on this footing only the conduct of Jesus towards the unbelieving Jews of Nazareth is abundantly justified.
To draw to a point, then, the substance of what has been said. To the question, why Jesus did not more miracles, before the unbelieving? We reply, That such conduct was not necessary to the end of miracles, which was to afford a reasonable conviction—that it was not likely to answer any good end, but, on the contrary, would have been hurtful to such unbelievers—that it tended to defeat the design and success of Christ’s ministry, by narrowing the sphere, of shortening the term of it—that, lastly and chiefly, it was unreasonable in itself, and contrary to the general scheme and order of God’s moral government.
Let no man then abuse himself with foolish imaginations, as if Christ was wanting in that which became his office and mission; still less, as if he acted from any caprice, or unconcern for the souls of men, in not forcing their belief; but least of all, as if his pretensions had any thing to fear from the little faith of those to whom he addressed himself, and could only prevail with the weak and credulous, with those who were unable or indisposed to scrutinize his miracles. Even this last insinuation has been made, not only without grounds, but against the fullest evidence; the miracles of Jesus having been numerous, public, illustrious, and even acknowledged, at least not convicted of imposture, by his bitterest enemies, by those who were most active and most able to examine into the truth and reality of them.
With regard to the miracles in question, let us be so ingenuous as to confess, that, if these were necessary to announce his office and character to the men of Nazareth, more than these were unnecessary, and that their unbelief affords the best grounds to conclude, that they were so. Consider too, that, if no reasons had occurred to us for this conduct, it could not certainly appear that it was unreasonable. When we know, in fact, what the method of God’s dealing with mankind has been, in any instance, we may be able perhaps to discern good reasons for it. But we can seldom affirm with any shew of reason, from any preconceptions or general speculations of our own, what it should or must be. Here we are manifestly out of our depth, and cannot stir a step without the hazard of absurdity or impiety.
If we have reason to admit the divine authority of our Religion, whatever conduct it ascribes to Jesus, must be fit and right, however impenetrable to us. If we admit it not, our concern is to see that we have reason for not admitting it. This matter is to be tried by the evidence given of that authority only, I mean by the external proofs, and historic testimony, on which it rests. When this is done, no slight cavils of reason, no fanciful suspicions, no plausible objections, nor any thing else but the most obvious contradiction in something it asserts to the clearest dictates of the human understanding (which no man has ever yet found) can possibly shake, or so much as affect, that authority.
In the present case, we have seen how entirely groundless the objection is to Christ’s conduct at Nazareth. But if this objection could not have been answered, nothing had followed but a conviction of our ignorance. It might still be true (as we now see it to be), that Jesus acted agreeably to his divine character in not doing many miracles before the people of Nazareth, because of their unbelief.