He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. He was amazed at their lack of faith (Mark 6:5-6).

I have commented on this elsewhere, but it bears repeating here. Some have suggested that the reason Jesus could not do any miracles was because He needed the faith of others to make His miracles work. This conclusion is problematic since He also raised the dead. Can the dead exercise faith? In the next chapter, Jesus heals a Syrophoenician woman's daughter, but it was not the daughter's faith that healed her but the mother's faith.

The words "could not" does not suggest Jesus' lack of ability but rather the vanity of doing miracles in a place of stubborn unbelief. For example, what if I said to a friend, "I cannot bring my loud boombox to the library." This statement does not mean that I am not able to do it but rather that it would be either (1) not allowed by the library staff or (2) not fitting the environment of a library, where quiet is the norm.

Friends, this is significant because there are many charlatans traveling around today claiming they have the gift of healing. When they fail, they sometimes accuse their victims of a lack of faith. In fact, if the healers were true healers, their own faith should have been sufficient to heal. Except for those rare occasions, where God heals in spite of the self-proclaimed healer, all of the modern claims to healing, those that have been documented, have proven to be psychosomatic or non-organic disorders, which any snake-oil salesman could also claim. Although these false miracles, like parlor tricks, may not be all that harmful in and of themselves, they can cause undo distress and suffering in people, who are not healed or who fail to get the necessary medical attention because of the influence of these faith healers. What is more, miracles, even counterfeit miracles, supply a kind of authority to those that make such claims. So when these charlatans combine false miracles with false teachng, they pose a great danger to the true faith. We must all be alert!

When Jesus sent out the Twelve (and later the Seventy-Two in Luke 10), he gave these instructions:

“Take nothing for the journey except a staff—no bread, no bag, no money in your belts. Wear sandals but not an extra shirt. Whenever you enter a house, stay there until you leave that town. And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, leave that place and shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them" (Mark 6:8-11).

In referencing these commands of Jesus, Paul wrote, 

In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel (1 Corinthians 9:14).

This text is perhaps the most frequently referenced passage to defend the now long-established tradition of a minister's salary, yet the closest reference to the Lord's command with respect to those that preach the gospel is to the sending out of His own disciples, the Twelve and then the Seventy-two. And in these passages, there is not a hint of a salary. Quite the contrary, Jesus taught simply that these itinerant ministers should accept whatever is given them to supply their basic necessities. Therefore, while twenty-first century interpreters may see in the words "receive their living from the gospel" as an annual salary (note: avg. U.S. Pastor's Salary in 2012 is $85,741 and with benefits $129,532; now with the median American income being $34,053, I find this gap somewhat disconcerting), the Scriptures simply teach food, drink, clothing and shelter.

What is more, when Paul speaks of support in 1 Corinthians 9, he is particularly referencing itinerant preachers, like the apostles, whose frequent travels would make it difficult to have established employment. What is more, even though he himself was an apostle, Paul emphasizes that he would not take advantage of this right of support so as not to "hinder the gospel of Christ" (1 Corinthians 9:12). He wanted to guard himself and the reputation of the gospel. In what sense might this hinder the gospel? We don't have to go too far to see what might be an extreme example of this: WFAA expose of Pastor Ed Young of Fellowship Church. So traveling ministers had a right to get their basic needs met, though Paul chose not to exercise this right.

But this would not be the case for a local pastor, who could be employed in the city where he ministered. What is more, in the clearest passage of all, where Paul specifically addresses local pastors in Ephesus, Paul commands all of them to follow his example in bi-vocational ministry, where he worked not only to support himself but also the poor in the congregation:

From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church. When they arrived, he said to them: “You know how I lived the whole time I was with you, from the first day I came into the province of Asia... “Now I commit you to God and to the word of his grace, which can build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified. I have not coveted anyone’s silver or gold or clothing. You yourselves know that these hands of mine have supplied my own needs and the needs of my companions. In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’ ” (Acts 20:17,18,33-35).

Paul told the Ephesian pastors to follow his example in working hard to provide for their own needs as well as the needy in their churches. The dictum, "It is more blessed to give than to receive," was not directed to the members but to the pastors. It is amazing how everything has been so turned around in the modern church.

Now, there are plenty of websites that cite one or another Scripture to defend some kind of a salary for clergy, but those that I found that make the case seem to look at Scripture in a very loose and shallow way, opting to cite translations that interpret a text in their view over literal translations that present a more complex picture. Like many things, you can make the Bible say whatever you want, but I believe an honest and thoughtful consideration of the relevant Scriptures would convince anyone that there is little or no biblical justification for a salaried local clergy.

For a scholarly treatment of this topic, I encourage you to read this biblical examination by Darryl M. Erkel: Should Pastors Be Salaried?

Friends, as I mentioned in a previous post on this topic, I am not so disillusioned as to think that my comments here will suddenly change this pervasive ecclesiastical practice; however, perhaps I may play a small role in asking the question, a kind of "What is the Matrix?" if you will. 

We read about Jesus being ridiculed in his hometown.

(Mark 6:1-6) Jesus left there and went to his hometown, accompanied by his disciples. When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were amazed. "Where did this man get these things?" they asked. "What’s this wisdom that has been given him? What are these remarkable miracles he is performing? Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him. Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his own town, among his relatives and in his own home." He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. He was amazed at their lack of faith."

Jesus faces judgmental attitudes. They knew him as a child and are incredulous at the idea of their childhood neighbor claiming to be the messiah. It’s one of the more difficult challenges to Christians faith - sharing the Gospel with old friends or family, those that knew us as children or before we were saved. Old friends and family know our past, all our history, our indiscretions and failings and this makes our testimony all the more difficult. There is generally skepticism at our transformation. We can sound self righteous and hypocritical to them as they knew us in a different light. Its really ironic because our family and old friends mean the most to us and all the more we want to share the good news of Christ with them. I have made a commitment (to myself) recently to share the gospel all the more fervently this year, starting with family and old friends, as the discomfort or ridicule we may face is part of the cross we bear as Christians.

Friends, even though this is from yesterday's reading, I want to share this with you to encourage you to be like this brother, who emailed me with a different point of view regarding my sharing on the reason Jesus told those He healed not to tell others. He wrote...

I'm not certain that the reason Jesus warned people not to tell people about the healings, etc., was to avoid being killed. He certainly didn't so warn the lame man by the pool of Bethesda in John 5; or the blind man that He healed in John 9. And he received persecution by the religious leaders as a result of both of these healings.

However, this warning of Jesus is referred to as "the Messianic secret". Perhaps He didn't want people to follow him for their selfish reasons; perhaps (in His humanity) He was limited as to how much He was able to accomplish in His limited time; and He feared lest He would not be able to fulfill the Father's will for Him on earth, if throngs came to Him to achieve their personal desires. There are reasons, other than just the one you suggest. In any case, I think you make a good point about Jesus not purposely seeking death. And, just as Jesus didn't throw Himself from the pinnacle of the Temple, as the devil urged Him to do, we shouldn't take foolish chances with our own lives; believing, as the devil urged Jesus to believe, that the Father would protect Him from death. I think that's a very good point. Well done!

Those of you that know me know that I appreciate so much those that seek to sharpen me by correcting anything I might have said or written wrong in my sharing. In fact, I often appreciate correction more than praise. For it is in this heart-felt dialogue over Scriptural truth that we honor the Word and draw nearer to God.

That said, here is my response to this brother...

I always appreciate your thoughtful input. Let's consider the two examples, where Jesus does not tell the person He heals not to spread the news. In the first instance, the lame man at the pool of Bethesda, we are told that after Jesus healed him, "the man departed and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well" (John 5:15). And Jesus had not told him not to do so. But if you read just the next verse, we learn, "For this reason the Jews persecuted Jesus, and sought to kill Him, because He had done these things on the Sabbath" (John 5:16). The Jews, and I imagine that this is referring primarily to the religious rulers, persecuted Jesus when they heard about what He was doing from this lame man. This may be one of the first incidents that prompted Jesus to tell people not to spread the news of their healing. So this text actually supports my contention that Jesus sought to avoid premature death at the hands of the Jewish religious rulers.

Now, regarding the blind man in John 9, this is a unique case because he was not healed immediately by Jesus. Jesus put some clay on his eyes, and he was told to wash in the pool of Siloam. So he went away from Jesus to be healed. Perhaps if he was healed right in front of Jesus, Jesus may have told him not to go spread the news. And when he shared the news with others, they also could not put two-and-two together because they kept asking how he had received his sight. Perhaps they were unclear whether it was a miracle of Jesus or a miracle from the pool of Siloam. Also, some even questioned the veracity of his story because there were no witnesses to the healing. Perhaps Jesus saw that there was no need to forbid him from spreading the news, for the account does not suggest that his sharing created the kinds of throngs of attention that His other healing events attracted.

The texts that I provided in my sharing the other day are much clearer with respect to the situation that precipitated Jesus telling those whom He healed not to share the news. Jesus was consistently seeking to avoid unnecessary confrontation with the Jewish leaders. This is also the reason He told some, like the lepers He healed, to go present themselves at the Temple in keeping with the Law of Moses. While confrontation would be unavoidable on account of Jesus' mission, it would be in His way and time and not one caused by the exuberance of the crowds from a healing event.

As for the reasons that you suggested, you wrote that perhaps Jesus did not want people to follow Him for selfish reasons. While it is true that Jesus taught humility and faith in His message over His miracles, Jesus could have made this point a lot better in other ways rather than telling those healed not to spread the news. Remember, the demoniac from the Gaderenes? This was the one instance where Jesus tells the one healed to go and tell others (Mark 5:19-20). Why? He was in a Gentile area, and among a people that were suspicious of Jesus, and even asked Him to leave their region. There was no risk of provoking Jewish authorities here. A similar experience happens with the Samaritan woman and the spreading of the news to the Samaritans. It was really only among the Jews that Jesus was concerned because of the threat of the Jewish leadership.

As for your other suggestion, you wrote that perhaps Jesus feared that He could not humanly complete the task God assigned to him. While Jesus certainly understood His limitations, over and over again we find Him pushing the limits because "He had compassion on" the people. He would heal and teach through long hours, even when the disciples were ready to call it quits. Beyond this, I don't know of anywhere in Scripture to suggest this type of "fear" in Jesus. In every case Jesus seemed to exude absolute confidence that He would faithfully carry out the will of the Father. If there is a moment of hesitation, it was His personal struggle with the prospect of death in the Garden of Gethsemane. But this supports my contention that Jesus was no fan of suffering and death. In His lifetime, He would make sure that He would do His part in avoiding premature death at the hands of the religious rulers.

Friends, have you ever wondered why Jesus repeatedly commanded those whom He healed not to tell others about the healing? For instance, we read that there were some who witnessed Jesus heal a man who was deaf and mute. In Mark 7:36 we read," Then He commanded them that they should tell no one." But instead of obeying His command, we are told, "But the more He commanded them, the more widely they proclaimed it." And there are many instances of this throughout the Gospels. 

I have heard all kinds of explanations for this. Most often I have heard that Jesus commanded this because He was modest and humble and did not care for the great popularity and acclaim that this would attract. But is this true? Why perform any signs at all then? Why feed the five thousand? He could have just as well sent them away to buy their own food. Did He not come to earth to make the Father known? When John the Baptist was in prison and sent his disciples to ask whether Jesus was the true Messiah, Jesus tells the disciples to report back to John the miracles Jesus was doing. Even to His own disciples Jesus says that if they could not believe His words alone, they should believe on account of the miracles.

The most reasonable explanation is one that I rarely hear preached. Yet, it comes straight from the biblical accounts. In Matthew 12:16-21, after Jesus heals all who were ill, we read,

He warned them not to tell others about him. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: 

“Here is my servant whom I have chosen,
   the one I love, in whom I delight;
I will put my Spirit on him,
   and he will proclaim justice to the nations.
He will not quarrel or cry out;
   no one will hear his voice in the streets.
A bruised reed he will not break,
   and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out,
till he leads justice to victory.
 In his name the nations will put their hope.”

This citation is from Isaiah 42:1-4, speaking of the coming Servant, the Messiah. It foretells that the focus of the Messiah will be on leading "justice to victory," and until then, He would avoid all unnecessary quarrels, conflicts and entanglements. But what entanglements would announcing His miracles create?

Announcing His miracles attracted crowds and the kind of attention that raised the ire of the religious rulers. In fact, by this point, they were already trying to kill Him. In fact, just before this passage, Jesus healed a man with a shriveled hand on the Sabbath. And we are told that the Pharisees thereafter plotted to kill Him. Then we read, "Aware of this, Jesus withdrew from that place" (Matthew 12:15). Jesus did not want to die before His time. He was clearly trying to avoid confrontation with the Pharisees.

Again in John 4:1-3 we learn,

Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John— although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples. So he left Judea and went back once more to Galilee.

Even though it was only hearsay that He was baptizing more people than John, the Pharisees believed it, and it was sufficient reason for Jesus to move on. Once again, at this point in His ministry, Jesus was trying to avoid unnecessary confrontation with the religious leaders. The time was not yet for Him to die. Our understanding is confirmed later in John 7:1, where we read,

After this, Jesus went around in Galilee. He did not want to go about in Judea because the Jewish leaders there were looking for a way to kill him.

Jesus was seeking to avoid the murderous religious rulers. It was not time for Him to die. When the time would come, He would fully and purposefully embrace His fate.

There are many other occasions, where Jesus commands different groups, even demons, to be silent about Who He was and about the miracles He was performing (e.g. Mark 3:2; 7:36; 8:30; 9:9; Luke 8:56; 9:21). In all these instances it was to avoid the murderous plots of the religious rulers. The demons announcing Jesus is the "Son of God" would be a quick death sentence, for this was the very "blasphemy" for which the Jewish Council would ultimately condemn Jesus to death. And there are accounts where we are told that the crowds were ready to annoint Jesus as their earthly king, which would also be a quick death sentence, for this was the very sedition against "Caesar" for which reason Pilate, the Roman Governor, with pressure by the religious rulers, justified condemning Jesus to crucifixion. Thus, throughout Jesus' ministry He sought to avoid premature death.

Friends, there is a saying, "Christians are immortal in the will of God." Some, hopefully only a few, take this to mean that they are impervious to death. They could jump in front of a car and not die. They reason that unless it is their time to die, they will not die; and if they do die, it is because it was God's will. Most of us would consider this absolutely foolish, and we would be right. However, how do we persuade the religious "nuts," who speak like this, to understand their wrongful thinking?

Well, in today's sharing we have a biblical argument against such foolish thinking. No one would argue against Jesus being perfectly in the center of God's will, so that He would not, and perhaps even could not, die until His time. Nevertheless, we see Jesus taking great pains in His words and His actions to avoid premature death. He was fixated on fulfilling His mission. Instead of speaking and acting foolishly, we learn that He uses parables and tries to keep a low profile in order to avoid conflict. And even then, His accusers have to invent reasons to condemn Him because He has not given them anything but stories (parables) and He avoided the seditious attempts by the people to make Him king.

Let us also, then, exercise wisdom as we live to serve the Lord.