CONFLICT IN GALILEE. Chs. 2:1-3:6 The five narratives found in Chs. 2:1-3:6 share in common the element of controversy. Jesus and his disciples are covertly (2:6-7;3:2) or openly 2:16,18,24) challenged by the Pharisees and the scribal interpreters of their tradition. They are offended by Jesus' actions; their indignation is expressed in the categorical statement, "he blasphemes" (2:7) or in the demanding question, "Why does he eat with publicans and sinners?" (2:16). The reaction of the scribes and Pharisees calls forth a crucial pronouncement of Jesus which sheds light on the new situation his coming has introduced. In recounting these incidents Mark makes no attempt to tell the story for its own sake. There is no dwelling on details which might create narrative interest or sustanin suspense. In faithfulness to the tradition, he re-creates the events in order to make intelligible the words of Jesus which informed the Church and silenced his adversaries. It is unlikely that thes five incidents happened consecutively or even at the same period in Jesus' ministry. Mark introduces them in a most general way: "Now John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting..."; "One sabbath he was going through the grain fields..."; "Again he entered the synagogue..." These were probably brought together in the tradition to which Mark was heir by the common element of conflict in Galilee. The incidents were remembered because they illumined aspects of the messianic mission: Ch. 2:1-17 concerns sins and sinners, and the forgiveness of God; Chs. 2:18-3:6 concern fasting and the observance of the sabbath, and the intention of God. This Galilean unit occupies an important position early in the Marcan outline and is balanced in the latter half of the Gospel by a series of five controversies in Jerusalem (Chs. 11:27-12:37). Together they indicate that the intrusion of the radically new situation provoked sustained conflict with the old and was the historical occasion for the decision that Jesus must be put to death. Mark 2:1 And again he entered into Capernaum; And when he entered again into Capernaum--ASV; When he re-entered Capernaum--Phi; after some days; Some days later--Ber; several days afterward--NASB; and it was noised that he was in the house.; it was heard that he was at home--ABUV; the news went round...--NEB; a rumour spread that he was in somebody's house--Phi; And it was heard say-- He is /in a house\; And again he entered into Capernaum, after some days, and it was heard that he is in the house, TRNTyeager607,8 - Kai eiselthwn palin eis Kapharnaoum di' hAmerwn AkousthA hoti en oikw estin. Kai (continuative conjunction). eiselthwn (aor.part.nom.sing.masc.of eiserchomai, adverbial, temporal). palin (adverbial). eis (preposition with the accusative of extent). Kapharnaoum (acc.sing.masc.of Kapharnaoum, extent. di' (preposition with the genitive of time description). hAmerwn (gen.pl.fem.of hAmera, time description). AkousthA (3d.per.sing.aor.pass.ind.of akouw, ingressive). hoti (conjunction introducing an indirect declaration). en (preposition with the locative of place where). oikw (loc.sing.masc.of oikos, place where). estin (3d.per.sing.pres.ind.of eimi, indirect discourse). Translation: "And after some time, having entered again into Capernaum He was reported to be in the house." COMMENT: Mark's grammar is a bit strange here. eiselthwn is really an absolute construction, but the substantive is missing. It is not adverbially temporal, since the subject of the participle is not the same as the subject of AkousthA. "He having entered...k.t.l....it was rumored that...k.t.l." Cf. #118 for dia with the genitive in time constructions. After the passing of some days (we do not know how many) Jesus left His solitude in the desert and came back again into Capernaum. Apparently He returned to Peter's house, where he had spent the night on His previous visit. Note the indirect declaration after AkousthA with its faithful reproduction of the tense of the verb estin as it was in direct quotation. The rumor that spread throughout the city was "He is in the house." What house? The same one where they found Him before when He healed Peter's mother- in-law. Cf. Mt.2:22 and often in the NT. Jesus could not escape publicity - then or at any time since. The non-elect will reject Jesus Christ of Nazareth, but they cannot ignore Him. Our Lord, even when He made an effort, could not be ignored! Ear115 - The greek literally says: "It was heard, 'He is in a house.'" But this is the Greek way of saying, "The people heard that he had come home" (NIV). Jesus had slipped out of town very early on the morning after the sunset healing service (1:32-35). Doubtless man who missed that opportunity hoped to get healed the next day, but Jesus was gone (v.39). Now the word got around that He was back home, and the crowd gathered again (2:2). MitGNTwuest44 - "Again He entered into Capernaum." The "again" points back to His departure (1:35) on a preaching tour. "He entered" is an aorist participle in the Greek text, making the fact of His discovery in Capernaum by the townspeople, the important thing. "Having entered, it was noised." "After some days" is di' hAmerwn literally "after days." Expositors remarks that this expression "suggests a short period, a few days, which seems too short for the time required for the preaching tour, even if it had been cut short by hostile influence, as is not improbable." Expositors suggests that the words dia chronou "for a considerable time" would be the appropriate phrase. The solution to the difficulty is in construing the words "after some days" with "it was noised," the resultant meaning being that some days went by after our Lord's arrival in Capernaum before the people found out that He was there. He had been absent possibly for some months, and hat returned to Capernaum quietly. "It was noised" is AkousthA. The verb means "to hear." The form is aorist passive. The subject is our Lord. "Having entered Capernaum, He was heard of as being in the house." "In the house" is en oikwi, namely, at home, in Peter's house presumably. Translation: "And having again entered into Capernaum, after some days He was heard of as being at home." MARKj&d62,3 - COMMENT Time--May-June, A.D. 28. The paralytic was cured some days after the healing of the leper on Jesus' return from his first tour of Galilee. The calling of Matthew was not very long after. But Matthew's feast was probably several weeks later, in the autumn, A.D. 28, following Mark 5:21. .... Place--The paralytic was cured at Capernaum. Matthew's place for the receipt of custom was at Capernaum, probably, upon the Damascus road near its entrance into the city. The road from Damascus to the cities along the coast passed by "Jacob's Bridge" over the Jordan, and thence along the shore of the lake--Andrews. The feast of Matthew was also at Capernaum. Parallel Accounts--The healing of the paralytic (Mt.9:2-8; Lk.5:17-26). LESSON OUTLINE--1. Coming to Christ in Faith. 2. The Accusation of the Scribes. 3. The Power of the Son of Man. LESSON ANALYSIS I. COMING TO CHIRST IN FAITH. vs.1-4. 1. The Lord Preaching in Capernaum. Mk.2:2; Lk.5:17. 2. The Palsied Man Brought. Mk.2:3; Mt.9:2; Lk.5:18. 3. Faith Overcomes Difficulties. Mk.2:4; Lk.5:19. II. THE ACCUSATION OF THE SCRIBES. vs.5-9. 1. Sins Forgiven. Mk.2:5; Mt.9:2; Lk.5:20. 2. The Charge of Blasphemy. Mk.2:7; Mt.9:3; Lk.5:21. 3. The Lord's Reply. Mk.2:8,9; Mt.9:4,5; Lk.5:22,23. III. THE POWER OF THE SON OF MAN. vs.10-12. 1. Power to Forgive Sins Asserted. Mk.2:10; Mt.9:6; Lk.5:24. 2. The Power to Forgive Sins Demonstrated. Mk.2:11,12; Mt.9:6; Lk.5:25. INTRODUCTION The return to Capernaum and the healing of the paralytic followed, after a short period, the history of which is not recorded, the healing of the leper. The incident narrated in this text occurred at the close of our Lord's first missionary circuit of Galilee. His labors were now devoted to this northern district of Palestine, where prejudices and bigotry were not so intense as in Judea. He was now at the most popular period of his earthly ministry. He had shown his divine power by many miracles, healing the nobleman's son at Capernaum, bringing myriads of fish to the disciples' net on the Sea of Tiberias, and restoring the demoniac in the synagogue. Though rejected at Nazareth, he was received with honor at Capernaum. His teachings, whether on the hill top, or beside the lake, or in the house of worship, were heard by wondering throngs, and his steps throughout Galilee were attended by multitudes, drawn by the fame of his miracles and the fascination of his words. The Pharisees and leading masses followed him with blind expectation of a new Judean kingdom which was to transform the Romans at once from masters to slaves, and bend the world in homage. Just at this hour occurred two significant miracles: the one silently asserting Jesus as superior to all ceremonial regulations, the other clamly claiming for him the divine prerogative of forgiving sin. EXPLANATORY NOTES I. Coming to Christ in Faith -- 1. "Again he entered Capernaum." Matthew says, "he entered his own city," the city he made his home, in which some have supposed that his mother now dwelt. It was "after days," some time having been occupied in his teaching and healing tour of Galilee. The excitement that followed his displays of divine power, and especially the healing of the leper, had rendered seclusion necessary until it should subside and he had remained "without in desert places" for a time. He evidently entered Capernaum quietly, but the tidings soon spread that he was in the house, probably either the home occupied by his mother and brethren, or the home of Peter, where we recently found him. His own house, as far as he had one, was now in Capernaum (Mt.4:13). NTC-MARKhendriksen85,6 - When one compares chapter 1 of Mark's Gospel with chapter 2 the contrast is striking. Chapter 1 is the chapter of glory; chapter 2, of opposition. To be sure, even in chapter 1 Jesus encountered opposition, but this was coming from the side of Satan and his demons ..., not from the side of men. The Spirit descends on Jesus, the Father calls him "my beloved Son", and the people are filled with amazement because of his words and works. As far as the human realm is concerned, the description of conflict begins in chapters 2 (esp. vs.6,7,16&24) and 3 (vs.2, 6, and 22). The struggle increases in intensity. At first the scribes merely "reason in their hearts" (2:6,7) against Jesus. Next they complain about him to his disciples (2:16). Afterward they become bolder and protest to Jesus himself; yet not immediately because of what he is doing but becaus eof what he is allowing his disciples to do (2:24). But in the third chapter they begin to scheme how they may destroy him (vs.6), and charge him with being in league with the devil (vs.22). Of course, the conflict could not be avoided; for he stressed love, they legalism; he God's holy law, they law- burying tradition; he freedom, they bondage; he the inner attitude, they the outward act. How they hated to surrender to him their prestige, their hold on the public! ...Jesus has returned from his Galilean circuit (1:38, 39). He is back in "his own city" (Mt.9:1). He is now "at home," or, as ome interpret the phrase "in a house." In this connection some think of the house where--as they assume-- Jesus, his mother Mary, and other members of the family, are now living. Here, however, one must be careful not to come into conflict with Mt. 13:54-56 (cf. Lk.4:16). Does the phrase refer, perhaps, to a Capernaum home which he himself now owned? The possibility cannot be ruled out. Mt.8:20 ("...the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head"; see on that passage) does not necessarily render this view unreasonable. Does it refer to Peter's house, an interpretation that is rather popular? But if Mark had been thinking of Peter's house, would not his reference to it have been more definite? See 1:29. The possibility should be considered that friends had provided Jesus with a home for his use while performing his task in and around Capernaum. However that may have been, in some real sense the house to which Jesus had come was "home" to him. And "everybody" had heard the report that he was home, for the news had quickly spread. Mark 2:2 And straightway many were gathered together,; and such a crowd gathered--Gspd; and they flocked to him in such numbers-- Rieu; insomuch that there was no room to receive them,; so that there was no longer room for them--ASV; so that it was impossible to hold them--Lam; no, not so much as about the door:; no, not even about the door--ASV; not even in front of the entrance--Lam; and he preached the word unto them.; and he was preaching the word to them--RSV; and many were gathered together, so that /no longer\ was there room //even in the approaches to the door\\,--and he began speaking unto them the word; and immediately many were gathered together, so that there was no more room, not even at the door, and he was speaking to them the word. TRNTyeager608,9 - kai sunAchthAsan polloi hwste mAketi chwrein mAde ta pros tAn thuran, kai elalei autois ton logon. kai (continuative conjunction). sunAchthAsan (3d.per.pl.aor.pass.ind.of sunagw, ingressive). polloi (nom.pl.masc.of polus, subject of sunAchthAsan). hwste (conjunction introducing a result clause). mAketi (negative temporal adverb). chwrein (pres.act.inf.of chwrew, in a result clause). mAde (negative continuating particle). ta (acc.pl.neut.of the article, general reference in the result clause). pros (preposition with the accusative physically "near to"). tAn (acc.sing.fem.of the article in agreement with thuran). thuran (acc.sing.fem.of thura, proximity). kai (inferential conjunction). elalei (3d.per.sing.imp.act.ind.of lalew, conative). autois (dat.pl.masc.of autos, indirect object of elalei). ton (acc.sing.masc.of the article in agreement with logon. logon (acc.sing.masc.of logos, direct object of elalei). Translation: "Therefore many people began to congregate with the result that no more could be received except near the door; so He began to preach the word to them" COMMENT: The news that Jesus was back in town was sufficient to bring the crowds. sunAchthAsan is passive. The people were herded together, but only by their own desire to see Jesus and to hear Him preach again. hwste...mAketi... mAde - "so that...no longer...not even..." The house filled and no more could be admitted except outside in the area near (pros with the accusative) the door. jesus took advantage of the situation and began (conative imperfect in elalei) to speak the Word of God to them. There was no healing yet except the healing of the mind and heart that the Word of God always brings. The stage was set for one of the most dramatic incidents in the life of Jesus. MitGNTwuest44,5 - "Straightway" is not in the best texts. "Insomuch" is hwste. Expositors says of this word; "The gathering was phenomenal; not only the house filled, but the space about the door was crowded--no room for more people even there (mAde), not to speak of within." "He preached the word to them." "Preached" is lalew not kArussw here. The latter word means "to make a public proclamation in a formal, grave, and authoritative manner which must be heeded." Lalew, used originally just of sounds like the chatter of birds, the prattling of children, is used here of the most serious kind of speech. It takes note of the sound and the manner of speaking. One thinks of the words in the song In the Garden; "He speaks, and the sound of His voice is so sweet, the birds hush their singing." Robertson says that the word lalew is common in the vernacular papyri examples of social intercourse. Our Lord thus spoke to the crowd assembled, in a conversational tone. The beauty of His voice, the charm of His manner, and the tenderness and love in His countenance, must have come to this weary, sick group of people as a breath from heaven. The verb is in the imperfect tense, emphasizing continuous action. Expositors' comment on the tense of this verb is as follows: "Jesus was preaching the gospel of the kingdom when the following incident happened. Preaching always first." Translation: "And there were gathered together many, so that no longer was there room to receive them, not even at the door; and He was talking to them about the Word." MARKj&d63,4 - "Many were gathered together." Luke (5:17) says, there were present Pharisees and doctors of the law from Galilee, Judea and Jerusalem. They had evidently gathered by a concerted arrangement to examine into the claims of a teacher who was creating so profound a sensation, and were moved by hostile purposes. This is the first time the antagonism of these classes shows itself. Hence, as he taught the throng that crowded the house, they sat by as spectators, censors, and spies, to pick up something on which to ground a reproach or accusation. How many are there in the midst of our assemblies where the gospel is preached that do not sit under the word, but sit by! It is to them as a tale that is told them, not as a message that is sent them; they are willing that we should preach before them, not that we should preach to them. And he preached the word to them. The simple language of Mark outlines the picture so that we can almost see the eager throngs filling the house, crowding around the door on the outside until there was no more entrance, stretching their heads over each other in order to see and hear, and the Lord, without any formality, declaring the word of the kingdom. "Preached." It is not the same Greek word that is found in Mk.1:39. That means to announce as a herald; thus simply to speak, as rendered in the Revision. The Savior was in a private house, and sat talking to the people. Such is the import of the term. It is almost always rendered speak in the Common Version, sometimes talk (or say or utter); never preach, except here and in four or five places in the Acts of the Apostles, and in all of these it would be better to render it speak. MARKmcgarvey273 - There is no inconsistency between this statement and the one just previously made, that after the healing of the leper he "could no more openly enter into the city" (1:45); for the present statement is that "he entered into Capernaum after some days" and even now he enters in privately, as appears from the remark, "it was noised abroad that he was in the house." When it was thus noised abroad "straightway many were gathered together, insomuch that there was no room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door;" and this confirms the previous statement. NTC-MARKhendriksen86,7 - ...In view of the amazement caused by Christ's words and works (1:21-34,38-45) we can understand why it was that the house was filled. No doubt friends and disciples of Jesus were present in goodly numbers, with genuine interest in the truth. Also, there must have been many "rubbernecks" burning with curiosity to hear what Jesus would say and especially what he would do. Last but not least, there were straitlaced rabbis--Pharisee and doctors of the law (Lk.5:17)--, filled with envy, deeply disturbed about the large crowds Jesus was attracting. These "important" people had come from every village not only in Galilee but even in Judea and Jerusalem! Result: not even near the doorway was there any room left. Normally it was by the doorway that entrance was obtained into the house. Only the well-to-do had an extra "gate" and entrance hall. In the more modest homes the "door" opened directly to the street. But today this entrance was blocked. And there were no fire- marshals to open a path. ...In his own unique manner ...Jesus was bringing the gospel to this audience. ... That, after all, was the purpose of his coming from heaven to earth (Mk.1:38), namely, to bring the message of cheer, liberty, salvation full and free ... Words of grace, clear and simple, were falling from his lips. TNICotNT-MARKlane93 - The movement of Jesus in the early phase of the Galilean ministry seems to alternate between "the wilderness" and the city. From Capernaum (1:21-34) he had departed to a "wilderness place" (1:35) before going to other towns and villages proclaiming the Kingdom of God. When his preaching tour was disrupted by the presence of crowds at the city gates clamoring for some benefaction he again reutned to "wilderness places" (1:45). His entrance into Capernaum marks a return to the city. The house in which he stayed is not identified, but it is natural to think of the home belonging to Peter and Andrew (1:29). His presence could not be concealed for more than a few days, and a large crowd gathered within the house and about the doorway. Jesus spoke to them "the word," i.e., the word of God concerning the nearness of the kingdom and the necessity for repentance and faith (cf. ch. 1:14f.). [7] [Mark uses "the word" without qualification again in 4:14-20,33, where the context is explicit that the word concerns the secret of the Kingdom (4:11).] Mark 2:3 And they come unto him,; And they come--ASV; And they came--RSV; bringing one sick of the palsy,; bringing to him a paralytic--RSV; ...a man who was paralyzed--Gspd; which was borne of four.; borne by four--ABUV; borne by four men--Alf; carried...--Ber; and they come, bearing unto him a paralytic, /upborne by four\, And they come unto him, bringing a paralytic, borne by four, TRNTyeager609 - kai erchontai pherontes pros auton paralutikon airomenon hupo tessarwn. kai (continuative conjunction). erchontai (3d.per.pl.pres.ind.of erchomai, historical). pherontes (pres.act.part.nom.pl.masc.of pherw, adverbial, modal). pros (preposition with the accusative of extent). auton (acc.sing.masc.of autos, extent). paralutikon (acc.sing.masc.of paralutikos, direct object of pherontes). airomenon (pres.pass.part.acc.sing.masc.of airw, adjectival, restrictive). hupo (preposition with the ablative of agent). tessarwn (abl.pl.masc.of tessares, direct agent). translation: "And they came to Him carrying a paralytic who was being borne by four men." COMMENT: The participle pherontes is modal. The other participle airomenon is adjectival and restrictive, since it is in the predicate position. Mark is speaking only of the particular paralytic who was being carried by four men. Obviously the man was unable to walk and would not have seen Jesus without the help of his friends who brought him on a pallet. Note hupo with the ablative of agent. Cf.#117 for other examples. Cf. Mt.9:2 and Lk.5:17 for comment. The presence of the Pharisees and teachers of the law indicates that trouble is brewing. An explosive situation is building up. MitGNTwuest45,6 - "And they come to Him." Mark uses the present tense here of a past event. It is called the historical present, presenting in graphic language a past event with the vividness of a present reality. One can see them coming. "Bringing" is pherw, "to carry some burden, to move by bearing." "Sick of the palsy" is from paralutikos, which is made up of luw "to loose," and para, "alongside," thus "suffering from the relaxing of the nerves on one side." Our word is "a paralytic." "Which was borne of four," is airomenon hupo tessaron. The word airw means "to raise from the ground, take up, to carry what has been raised up." The verbal form is a participle, describing the paralytic. Expositors says: "The arrival creates a stir...this may mean more than the four who actually carried the sick man,...friends accompanying. The bearers might be servants." Translation: "And they come, bearing to Him a paralytic who had been picked up and was being carried by four men." MARKj&d64 - Four persons bear the invalid, who was perfectly helpless, to the house while Christ was engaged in teaching. Albert Barnes, in his notes (Mt.4:24), classifies the infirmities which, in the NT, are included under the general name of palsy: (1) The paralytic shock affecting the whole body; (2) a stroke affecting only one side, or a part of the body; (3) paraplegy, affecting all the system below the neck; (4) catalepsy, caused by a contraction of the muscles in the whole or a part of the body (5) the cramps, a fearful and common malady. The disease, in its worst forms, was incurable. Borne of four. Borne on his pallet or bed, with one person at each corner. NTC-MARKhendriksen87 - Suddenly, however, there is an interruption, a noise overhead: ... Wretched indeed was this man. The disease that plagued him is characterized by extreme loss of power of motion, and is generally caused by inability of the muscles to function, due to injury in the motor areas of the brain and/or of the spinal cord. In addition to the parallels in Mt. and Lk. see also Mt.4:24; 8:5-13; Acts 8:7; 9:33. In the present case whatever may have been the parts of the body affected by paralysis and the point to which the sickness had progressed, one fact is clear: the stricken person was unable to move about. He had to be carried. Four men--relatives? friends?--performed this service for him, as Mark indicates. Mark 2:4 And when the could not come nigh unto him for the press,; ...for the crowd--ASV; And when they could not get near him because of the crowd--RSV; they uncovered the roof where he was; they removed the roof above Him--NASB; ...the tiles from the roof over Jesus' head--Phi; they dug through the clay roof over His head--Tay; and when they had broken it up,; and when they had broken through--NEB; and when they had made an opening--RSV; they let down the bed; they lowered the mat--Wey; ...the stretcher--NEB; they let down the pallet--RSV; wherein the sick of the palsy lay.; on which the paralytic was lying--Ber; and they uncovered the roof where he was, and /having broken it up\ they began letting down the couch whereon the paralytic was lying; and not being able to come near to him because of the multitude, they uncovered the roof where he was, and, having broken it up, they let down the couch on which the paralytic was lying, TRNTyeager609,10 - kai mA dunamenoi prosenegkai autw dia ton ochlon apestegasan tAn stegAn hopou An, kai exoruxantes chalwsi ton krabatton hopou ho paralutikos katekeito. kai (continuative conjunction). mA (negative conjunction with the participle). dunamenoi (pres.part.nom.pl.masc.of dunamai, adverbial, causal). prosenegkai (aor.act.inf.of prospherw, complementary). autw (loc.sing.masc.of autos, with pros and a verb of rest). dia (preposition with the accusative, cause). ton (acc.sing.masc.of the article in agreement with ochlon). ochlon (acc.sing.masc.of ochlos, cause). apestegasan (3d.per.pl.aor.act.ind.of apostegazw, ingressive). uncover - here. Meaning: A combination of apo and stegazw, from stegA. To take away the roof; to uncover. To remove a portion of the roof as here. tAn (acc.sing.fem.of the article in agreement with stegAn). stegAn (acc.sing.fem.of stegA, direct object of apestegasan). hopou (relative adverb of place). An (3d.per.sing.imp.ind.of eimi, progressive description). kai (continuative conjunction). exoruxantes (aor.act.part.nom.pl.masc.of exorussw, adverbial, temporal). break up - here pluck out - Gla.4:15. Meaning: A combination of ek and orussw. Hence, to dig out; pluck out. With reference to the eyes of the Galatians - Gal.4:14; with reference to the roof of a house - here. chalwsi (3d.per.pl.pres.act.ind.of chalaw, historical). ton (acc.sing.masc.of the article in agreement with krabatton). krabatton (acc.sing.masc.of krabattos, direct object of chalwsi). bed - here,Mk.2:9,11,12; 6:55; Jn.5:8,9,10,11; Acts 9:33. couch - Acts 5:15. Meaning: A pallet; camp bed; bed roll; stretcher. hopou (relative adverb of place). ho (nom.sing.masc.of the article in agreement with paralutikos). katekeito (3d.per.sing.imp.mid.ind.of katakeimai, progressive duration). Translation: "And not being able to carry him to Jesus because of the crowd they ripped away a portion of the roof where He was, and having broken it up, they lowered the stretcher upon which the paralytic was lying." COMMENT: dunamenoi is an adverbail participle used in a causal sense. It tells why those who carried the patient were forced to resort to tearing up the roof. The prepositional phrase dia ton ochlon is also causal. It tells us why they were not able to carry the stretcher with the man lying upon it directly to Jesus. The crowd was so great that the house was filled and the area near the door was also occupied. Cf.#118 for other examples of dia with the accusative in a causal sense. hopou An - "where He (Jesus) was" - the spot on the roof which was directly above Jesus. apestegasan means to remove the top cover (shingles, etc), whereas exoruxantes means to "dig out a hole" - i.e. to break away the sheathing. These two verbs thus give us some idea of the manner in which roofs were built at the time. The second relative clause hopou...katekeito describes the pallet (stretcher) upon which the patient was lying. Cf. Lk.5:18,19. Ear115 - Uncovered the Roof. apestegasan tAn StegAn--literally, "unroofed the roof." This is typical of the vivid, vigorous language of Peter, reflected in Mark's Gospel. Mark alone also adds: "and after digging through it." Luke says that they went up on the roof and lowered the paralytic "through the tile." The typical home in Palestine had a flat roof, with outside steps leading to it. On top of the crossbeams were laid branches of trees, or tiles as here, covered with dirt. The four friends dug down through the dirt, broke through the tiles, and lowered the man down in front of Jesus. Matthew gives none of these details. Ear115,6 - Bed or Mat? The three Synoptic Gospels use three different Greek words for the "bed" on which the paralytic was lying. Matthew has klinA, the common word for bed, which occurs nine times in the NT. Luke has the diminutive form, klinidion--only found in this incident (Lk.5:19,24). But Mark, typically, uses an entirely different word: krabattos, a "pallet." Marvin Vincent describes it as: "A rude pallet, merely a thickly padded quilt or mat, held at the corners, and requiring no cords to let it down" (WS). Swete says that it was "the poor man's bed...small and flexible, and therefore better adapted for the purpose of the bearers than the klinA which Mt. and Lk. (5:18) substitute. Lk., who seems to feel the difficulty as to klinA, uses klinidion as the story advances (v.19)" (p.32). Krabattos occurs mostly in Mark (2:4,9,11,12; 6:55), but also in John (5:8-12) and Acts (5:15; 9:33). MitGNTwuest46 - "When they could not come nigh unto Him." The Nestle and Westcott and Hort texts have prosenegkai, the second aorist infinitive of prospherw "to bring to." "Him" is in the locative case, emphasizing "position within which." it is, "not being able to bring him to a place before Him." "For the press" is dia ton ochlon, in modern English, "because of the crowd." "They uncovered the roof" is apestegasan tAn stegAn. Here we have a cognate accusative. "They unroofed the roof." This is the only instance of this word in the NT. It is a rare word in late Greek, Robertson says. Moulton and Milligan do not give any papyri examples of it. The oriental roof was flat, and the veranda of the house. It could be reached by outside stairs. This would explain the men's access to the roof. "When they had broken it up," is from exorussw, "to dig out, to scoop out." Vincent says: "A modern roof would be untiled or unshingled; but an oriental roof would have to be dug to make such an opening as was required. A composition of mortar, tar, ashes, and sand is spread upon the roofs, and rolled hard, and grass grows in the crevices....In some cases, as in this, stone slabs are laid across the joists. See Lk.5:19, where it is said 'they let him down through the tiles; so that they would be obliged, not only to dig through the grass and earth, but also to pry up the tiles." "They let down the bed." "Let down" is from chalaw "to let down from a higher place to a lower." Probably the men had a rope fastened to each corner of the pallet on which the paralytic lay. "Bed" is from krabattos, "a thickly padded quilt or mat." "Lay" is katakeimai, keimai "to lie," and kata, "down." The paralytic was a dead weight. He was prostrate. Translation: "And not being able to bring the paralytic to a place before Him because of the crowd, the unroofed the roof where He was, and having dug it up, they lowered the pallet where the paralytic was lying prostrate." MARKj&d64,5 - "Could not come nigh unto him for the press." The crowd. Here, then, we have a reason, as one has observed, why it was "expedient that our Lord should depart," and that "the Comforter should come." The throng of multitudes crowding after the bodily presence of Christ was a hinderance to the gospel; while many could not "get at him by reason of the press," and even some, for a season, might go "empty away." His body was necessarily limited by space, but the spirit of the Lord is in all places. "Uncovered the roof." Unable to enter the house, they climbed to its roof, either by an outside staircase, a ladder, or from the roof of an adjoining house. The following from Thompson will make the account easily understood: "The houses of Capernaum, as is evident from the ruins were like those of modern villages in this same region, very low, with flat roofs reached by a stairway from the yard or court. The roof is only a few feet high, and by stooping down and holding the corner of the couch, merely a thickly-padded quilt, as at present in this region, they could let down the sick man without any apparatus of ropes or cords to assist them. I have often seen it done, and done it myself, to houses in Lebanon, but there is always more dust than is agreeable. The materials now employed for roofs are beams about three feet apart, across which short sticks are arranged close together and covered with thickly-matted thorn-bush, called bellan. Over this is spread a coat of stiff mortar, and then comes the marl, or earth, which makes the roof. Now, it is easy to remove any part of this without injuring the rest. No objection, therefore, would be made on this account by the owners of the house. They had merely to scrape back the earth from a portion of the roof over the lewan, take up the thorns and short sticks, and let down the couch between the beams at the very feet of Jesus. The end achieved, they could easily restore the roof as it was before." "The bed." This was a small, low couch or bed of the commonest description, such as was used by poor people, having a mere network of cords stretched over the frame to support the mattress. Sometimes merely a sheepskin, used for the service of the sick, or as a camp-bed. NTC-MARKhendriksen87,8 - ...The courage and resourcefulness of the five, particularly also their faith in the success of their venture, hence ultimately their trust in Jesus, must be admired. If the house where the crowd had gathered had an outside stairway, then it was by means of it that the four and their precious cargo reached the roof. If it did not but the adjoining house had one, then, having reached the top of that other house, they crossed over from roof to roof. In one way or another they reached the place directly above the spot where Jesus was addressing the people. Now to get through the roof! This outside cover of a house was generally flat. It had beams with transverse rafters, overlaid with brushwood, tree branches, etc., on top of which was a thick blanket of mud or clay mixed with chopped straw, beaten and rolled. Such a roof was not difficult to "unroof" (the very word used in the original: "they unroofed the roof"). Having made an opening in the roof, the four lowered the pallet on which the paralytic was lying. Cf. the manner in which Paul was let down over the wall at Damascus (Acts 9:25; II Cor.11:33). The "pallet" was a kind of poor man's bed, perhaps a thin, straw-filled mattress. Since there were four men who lowered the pallet, it is probably legitimate to imagine that ropes had been attached to the four corners of the bed. Thus it was that the sick man landed right in front of Jesus. The latter, looking down, saw this patient; and glancing up, took notice of the four "friends in need" who were proving to be "friends indeed." We do not read that the four, from their position on top of the roof, shouted anything to Jesus. Nor does any of the evangelists report that the sick man himself said anything to him. As far as the paralytic is concerned, it is even possible that, due to his condition, he was unable to speak. But though the five did not talk, they trusted! And that was what really mattered. Their confidence touched the very heart of the Lord, so that we read: TNICotNT-MARKlane93,4 - Jesus' preaching was interrupted by the arrival of a small party of men who carried a paralyzed man on a mattress. It is impossible to say anything definite about the nature of the man's affliction beyond the fact that he was unable to walk. The determination of those who brought him to Jesus suggests that his condition was wretched. When they were unable to break through the crowd they ascended a stairway on the side of the house to the flat roof which they broke open in order to lower the man before Jesus. Jesus recognized this bold expedient as an expression of faith: the four clearly believed that he had the power to heal this man. Mark 2:5 When Jesus saw their faith,; ...noted...--Nor; Then Jesus, when he perceived their faith--Mon; he said unto the sick of the palsy,; he said to the paralytic--RSV; Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. ...are forgiven--ASV; My son, your sins...-- RSV; My lad, your sins are forgiven!--Nor; and /Jesus, seeing their faith\ saith unto the paralytic-- Child! forgiven are thy sins! and Jesus having seen their faith, saith to the paralytic, 'Child, thy sins have been forgiven thee.' TRNTyeager611 - kai idwn ho IAsous tAn pistin autwn legei tw paralutikw, Teknon, aphientai sou ai hamartiai. kai (continuative conjunction). idwn (aor.act.part.nom.sing.masc.of horaw, adverbial, temporal). ho (nom.sing.masc.of the article in agreement with 'IAsous). tAn (acc.sing.fem.of the article in agreement with pistin). pistin (acc.sing.fem.of pistis, direct object of idwn). autwn (gen.pl.masc.of autos, possession). legei (3d.per.sing.pres.act.ind.of legw, historical). tw (dat.sing.masc.of the article in agreement with paralutikw). paralutikw (dat.sing.masc.of paralutikos, indirect object of legei). Teknon (voc.sing.masc.of teknon, address). aphientai (3d.per.pl.pres.pass.ind.of aphiAmi, aoristic). sou (gen.sing.masc.of su, possession). hai (nom.pl.fem.of the article in agreement with hamartiai). hamartiai (nom.pl.fem.of hamartia, subject of aphientai). Translation: "And when Jesus saw their faith He said to the paralytic, 'Son, your sins are forgiven.'" COMMENT: Jesus saw the evidence of the faith of the men who brought the patient. He said nothing to the patient about his faith, although we may assume that he shared with those who carried him the belief that Jesus could heal him. Surely they believed both in our Lord's willingness to heal and ability to do so or they would not have resorted to the plan which involved a great deal of work. Real faith manifests itself in action - even the action described here which, to say the least, was unorthodox. Real faith is not frustrated by difficulties. Jesus observed the faith of all five, the four men who bore him and the man borne. Note that Jesus did not say that the man's illness was cured. He spoke of a greater blessing - the forgiveness of sins. This is a striking statement that could come only from God. Cf.Mt.9:2 and Lk.5:20. Ear116 - Be Forgiven Thee. The Greek very clearly says "are forgiven" (NASB, NIV) -- aphientai, present indicative. Luke puts it even more strongly: aphewntai, perfect passive, "Your sins have been forgiven you." It was not a wish but a declaration. MitGNTwuest47,8 - "When Jesus saw their faith." "Saw," aorist participle in predicate position. "Jesus" is articular, in nominative case. The construction calls for, "And having seen their faith, Jesus says to the paralytic." "Their" refers to the men who carried the sick man and dug up the roof and let him down into the room. Their actions were the visible evidence of their faith. It is possible that the paralytic had faith to be healed, but the faith referred to here was that evidenced by the strenuous actions of the men. What a repair bill Peter must have had when it came to replacing the torn-up roof. "Son, thy sins be forgiven thee." "Son" is teknon, "child," the word "son" being the proper translation of huios, "an adult son." Moulton and Milligan say that teknon is used in the papyri as a term of kindly address, even to adults. The wretched physical condition of the sick man was due to his sinful life. Yet Jesus treats him with the utmost of kindness. "Be forgiven" is the translation (A.V.) of aphiAmi. Moulton and Milligan say that the use of aphiAmi start from the etymological sense "throw." They give an illustration of its use in the papyri, "let the pot drop." From this primitive physical meaning may be derived the common meaning "leave, let go." Another instance of its use in koine Greek is in the words "waived the extra fifty percent," which usage is seen in Mt.18:27, and which idea leads to the general idea of forgiveness. Still another instance of its use is found in the Rosetta stone, in the words "total remission" of certain taxes. Thayer gives for aphiAmi, "to send from one's self, to send away, to let go or give up a debt, to remit, forgive." Our word "forgive" does not, as commonly used, give an adequate picute of this Greek word. We say that we have forgiven some one who has wronged us. By that we mean than any feeling of animosity we may have had, has changed to one of renewed friendliness and affection. We do not hold the wrong done us against the person anymore. But so far as the act itself is concerned, we cannot do anything about it. It has been done, and it cannot be removed from the one who committed the wrong. But this word aphiAmi includes within its content of meaning, the act of dealing with the act of wrong doing in such a way that the sinner who appropriates the Lord Jesus as Saviour, ahs his sins put away, and in two ways. First, they are put away on a judicial basis by the out-poured blood of Christ. He paid the penalty the broken law required, and thus satisfied divine justice. Second, on the basis of that, God removes the guilt of that sin from the believing sinner and bestows a positive righteousness, Jesus Christ Himself, in whom this person stands justified forever. This is what is meant by Bible forgiveness in the case of God and a believing sinner. "Be forgiven" (AV) is present indicative in the Greek text and states a fact. "Are forgiven" is the correct rendering. Translation: "And having seen their faith, He says to the paralytic, Child, your sins are put away." MARKj&d65,6 - II. The Accusation Of The Scribes--"When Jesus saw their faith." Their faith was shown by their action. A living faith is always a power that moves. It is not a strong conviction of any doctrine about Christ, but a strong trust in Christ. These men had no theories about Jesus, but had confidence in him as the great Healer and sought to come to him. Matthew Henry quaintly says: "When the centurion and the woman of Canaan were in no care at all to bring the patients they interceded for into Christ's presence, but believed that he could cure them at a distance, he commended their faith. But though in these there seemed to be a different notion of the thing, and an apprehension that it was requisite the patient should be brought into his presence, yet he did not censure and condemn their weakness, did not ask them, "Why do you give this disturbance to the assembly? Are you indeed under such a degree of infidelity as to think I could not have cured him though he had been out of doors?' But he made the best of it; and even in this he saw their faith. It is a comfort to us that we serve a Master that is willing to make the best of us." The palsied man had faith as well as his bearers, for they would not bring him against his will. "Thy sins be forgiven thee." Matthew says, "Be of good cheer," etc. The Jews held that all disease was a punishment for sin (Jn.9:2), and in a deeper sense, all evil of every kind is the fruit of sin. Nor is it unlikely that in this case the paralysis was really the punishment of his special sins (probably of sensuality). Accordingly, he first of all promises forgiveness, as being the moral condition necessary to the healing of the body; and then, having by forgiveness removed the hinderance, he proceeds to impart that healing itself by an exercise of his supernatural power. MARKbarclay39,40,41 - After Jesus had completed His tour of the Synagogues He returned to Capernaum. The news of His coming immediately spread abroad. Life in Palestine was very public. In the morning the door of the house was opened and anyone who wished might come out and in. The door was never shut unless a man deliberately wished for privacy; an open door meant an open invitation for all to come in. In the humbler houses, such as this must have been, there was no entrance hall; the door opened direct on to the street. So, in no time, a crowd had filled the house to capacity, and had jammed the pavement round the door; and they were all eagerly listening to what Jesus had to say. Into this crowd there came four men carrying on a stretcher a friend of theirs who was paralysed. They could not get through the crowd at all, but they were men of resource. The roof of a Palestinian house was flat. It was regularly used as a place of rest and of quiet, and so usually there was an outside stair which ascended to it. The construction of the roof lent itself to what this ingenious four proposed to do. The roof consisted of flat beams laid across from wall to wall, perhaps three feet apart. The space in between the beams was filled with brushwood packed tight with clay. The top was then marled over. Very largely the roof was of earth and often a flourishing crop of grass grew on the roof of a Palestinian house. It was the easiest thing in the world to dig out the filling between two of the beams; it did not even damage the house very much, and it was easy to repair the breach again. So the four men dug out the filling between two of the beams and let their friend down direct at Jesus feet. When Jesus saw this faith that laughed at barriers He must have smiled an understanding smile. He looked at the man, "Child," He said, "your sins are forgiven." It may seem an odd way to begin a cure. But in Palestine, in the time of Jesus, it was natural and inevitable. The Jews integrally connected sin and suffering. They argued that if a man was suffering he must have sinned. That is in fact the argument that Job's friends produced. "Who," demanded Eliphaz the Temanite, "ever perished being innocent?" (Job 4:7). The Rabbis had a saying, "There is no sick man healed of his sickness until all his sins have been forgiven him." To this day we get the same idea among primitive peoples. Paul Tournier writes, "Do not missionaries report that disease is a defilement in the eyes of the savage? Even converts to Christianity do not dare to go to Communion when they are ill, because they consider themselves spurned by God." To the Jews a sick man was a man with whom God was angry. It is still true that a great many illnesses are due to sin; it is still truer that time and time again they are not due to the sin of the ill man, but to something he has inherited or contracted because of the sin of others. But we do not make that close connection. But the Jews did. Therefore, any Jew would have agreed that forgiveness of sins was a prior condition of cure. But it may well be that there is more than this in this story. The Jews made this connection between illness and sin, and it may well be that in this case, the man's conscience agreed. And it may well be that that consciousness of sin had actually produced the paralysis. The power of mind, especially the sub-conscious mind, over the body is an amazing thing. The psychologists quote a cure of a girl who played the piano in a cinema in the days of the silent films. Normally she was quite well, but immediately the lights went out and the cigarette smoke filled the auditorium she began to be paralysed. She fought against it for long, but at last the paralysis became permanent and something had to be done. Examination revealed no physical cause whatever. Under hypnosis it was discovered that when she was very young, only a few weeks old, she had been lying in one of these elaborate old-fashioned cots with ar arch of lace over it. Her mother had bent over her smoking a cigarette. The draperies had caught fire. It was immediately extinguished and no hurt was done to her at the time. She did not know that her sub-conscious mind was remembering this terror; but it was; and the dark plus the smell of the cigarette smoke in the cinema acted on the unconscious mind and paralysed her body--and she did not know why. Now the man in this story may well have been paralysed because consciously or unconsciously his conscience agreed that he was a sinner, and the thought of being a sinner brought the illness which he believed was was the inevitable consequence of sin. The first thing that Jesus said to him was, "Child, God is not angry with you. It's all right." It was like speaking to a frightened child in the dark. The burden of the terror of God and the estrangement from God rolled from his heart, and that very fact made the cure all but complete. It is a lovely story because the first thing that Jesus does for everyone of us is to say, "Child, God is not angry with you. Come home, and don't be afraid." [Ed. I do not like Barclay's supposition that the illness was entirely psychosomatic. His illustration takes a psychosomatic condition cause by an accident and likens it to this case where the young man was well aware of his sin. Jesus is here teaching these people that a much greater that "John" is here.] MARKmcgarvey274 - Their faith was very clearly seen in their actions. The man could not walk, but he had four friends whose faith in the power and willingness of Jesus to heal him was so great, that they bore him on his bedding to the house. Unable to get into the house, on account of the eager pressure of the crowd, but determined not to be baffled, they contrived by some means, most likely by an outside flight of stairs, to get upon the roof with their burden. it was no easy task for them to make the ascent, carrying a man who was perfectly helpless. They found, or perhaps they knew before, that the roof was one which could be broken open easily (it was a tile roof, Lk.5:19), and now, notwithstanding the expense they would incur, and the probable displeasure of the owner of the house, they tear open the roof and let the man down as low as they can reach, above the heads of the people within. It is difficult to see how they could have shown their faith more plainly. The reason why sinners do not now show their faith in him as plainly, when they have it, is because they have not so great a desire to be healed. Men who would risk every thing for the cure of bodily disease, often bear very patiently the maladies of the soul. NTC-MARKhendriksen88,9 - To infer from this that Jesus traced the man's sickness to his sin, as is often done, is unwarranted, though it is true that among the Jews the notion, "A grievously afflicted individual must have been a grievous sinner" was not unusual (Job 4:7; 22:5-10; Lk. 13:4; Jn. 9:2). For a similar belief among non-Jews see Acts 28:3,4. As the passages from the Gospels prove, Jesus combated this error. But as to this paralytic, all we really know is that he was deeply concerned about his sin. Whether even he him- self thought that his sin had resulted in his sickness is not stated. Jesus knew, however, that this man's sins--the many ways in which by means of his attitudes, thoughts, words, and deeds he had missed the mark of living in harmony with God's will-grieved him deeply. According to Matthew, Jesus very tenderly addresses this man as son or child. He said to him (according to all three evangelists), "Forgiven [69] are your sins" (the order of the words in the original, placing all the emphasis on forgiving love). Not only for the paralytic was this pronouncement of pardon an inestimable blessing, it was also a source of gladness for his benefactors. They must have rejoiced in his joy. More even, it was a lesson for the entire audience. All were made aware of the fact that this Physician regarded spiritual blessings above material, and claimed to possess "authority"--that is, the right and the power--to heal not only the body but also the soul. Jesus never took sin lightly. He never told people, "Do y o u have a sense of guilt? Forget about it." On the contrary, he regarded sins as inexcusable departure from God's holy law (Mk.12:29,30), as having a soul-choking effect (4:19; cf. Jn.8:34), and as being a matter of the heart and not only of the outward deed (Mk.7:6,7,15-23. But he also offered the only true solution. He was well aware of the fact that the advice, "Get rid of your guilt feelings; a little cruelty, promiscuity, infidelity is not so bad," creates more problems than it solves. He also knew that it was entirely impossible for a person to rid his soul of the sense of guilt by trying to offset his sins by good deeds. He knew that this philosophy would lead but to tragic failure and appalling despair. Instead, he had come to proclaim--no, not only to proclaim but first of all to provide--the one and only solution, namely forgiveness, and this on the basis of his own atonement for sin (10:45; 14:22-24). Cf. Jn.1:29. When he therefore now says to the paralytic, "Forgiven are your sins," he is not only conveying to this man the news of God's forgiveness, as Nathan had done to penitent David (II Sam.12:13); he is also in his own right canceling the paralytic's debt. He bl9ots out his sins completely and forever. Cf. Ps.103:12; Isa1:18; 55:6,7; Jer.31:34; Mic.7:19; Jn.1:9. Moreover, such forgiveness never stands alone. It is ever "pardon plus." In Christ, God dispels the invalid's gloom and embraces him with the arms of his protecting and adopting love. Cf. Rom.5:1. TNICotNT-MARKlane94 - Jesus' response to their faith was the unexpected statement, "Son, your sins are forgiven!" The pronouncement was startling because it seemed inappropriate and even irrelevant to the immediate situation. It is intelligible, however, against the background provided by the OT where sin and disease, forgiveness and healing are frequently interrelated concepts. Healing is conditioned by the forgiveness of God and is often the demonstration of that forgiveness (cf. II Chron.7:14; Ps.103:3; 147:3; Isa. 19:22; 38:17; 57:18f.). In a number of texts "healing" and "forgiveness" are interchangeable terms (Ps.41:4, "heal me, for I have sinned against thee"; Jer.3:22 and Hos.14:4, God will "heal" his people's backsliding). Healing is a gracious movement of God into the sphere of withering and decay which are the tokens of death at work in a man's life. It was not God's intention that man should live with the pressure of death upon him. Sickness, disease and death are the consequence of the sinful condition of all men. Consequently every healing is a driving back of death and an invasion of the province of sins. It is unnecessary to think of a corresponding sin for each instance of sickness; there is no suggestion in the narrative that the paralytic's physical suffering was related to a specific sin or was due to hysteria induced by guilt. Jesus' pronouncement of pardon is the recognition that man can be genuinely whole only when the breach occasioned by sin has been healed through God's forgiveness of sins. Mark 2:6 But there were certain of the scribes sitting there,; Now there were some lawyers...--NEB; There were some Bible scholars...--Beck; and reasoning in their hearts,; questioning in their hearts--RSV; and they thought to themselves--NEB; Now there were certain of the Scribes there, sitting and deliberating in their hearts,-- And there were certain of the scribes there sitting, and reasoning in their hearts, TRNTyeager612 - Asan de tines twn grammatewn ekei kathAmenoi kai dialogizomenoi en tais kardiais autwn. Asan (3d.per.pl.imp.ind.of eimi, imperfect periphrastic). de (adversative conjunction). tines (nom.pl.masc.of tis, subject of Asan). twn (gen.pl.masc.of the article in agreement with grammatewn). grammatewn (gen.pl.masc.of grammateus, partitive genitive). ekei (adverbial). kathAmenoi (pres.part.nom.pl.masc.of kathAmai, imperfect periphastic). kai (adjunctive conjunction, joining participles). dialogizomenoi (pres.part.nom.pl.masc.of dialogizomai, imperfect periphastic) 1197. en (preposition with the locative of sphere). tais (loc.pl.fem.of the article in agreement with kardiais). kardiais (loc.pl.fem.of kardia, sphere). autwn (gen.pl.masc.of autos, possession). Translation: "But some of the scribes were sitting there philosophizing in their hearts," COMMENT: de is adversative. Jesus' statement about forgiveness of sins was certain to induce controversy with the establishment. The scribes, who enjoyed the reputation of knowing most about Jewish religion, at least in their own estimation, were about to oppose Jesus. Note the double imperfect periphastic with Asan and the two present participles. They were sitting there and pondering the statement of Jesus and thinking en tais kardiais autwn - literally, "in their hearts," i.e. "to themselves." The scribes were on guard to see that this unusual teacher who, unlike themselves, taught with authority, did not ups et their religious and political house of cards. When men reason with their hearts they do not think clearly. ???? Emotion has no place in clear thinking. The scribes were prejudiced against the Lord Jesus. Any conclusion which they might reach in reference to Him was sure to be colored by their prior dogma that He was an imposter. We need not expect them to be objective and fair. ... MitGNTwuest48 - "Certain of the scribes sitting there." Expositors says: "If the posture is to be pressed, they must have been early on the spot, so as to get near to Jesus and hear and see Him distinctly." These scribes were there to cause trouble and to pick flaws in His teaching. They were jealous of this new Teacher's popularity and power. "Reasoning in their hearts." The word is dialogizomai, "to bring together different reasons, to revolve in one's mind, to deliberate." But what they thought in their hearts, was expressed in their faces, actions, and very personalities. There was a hostile atmosphere in the room, and our Lord sensed it. MARKj&d66 - "Certain of the scribes." The doctors of the law that Luke says had come from Judea and Jerusalem. They had come to criticise and condemn, and hence had eyes and ears open to discover a fault. Not long before Jesus had startled the theologians at Jerusalem when he attended the passover, and hearing of his wonderful popularity in Galilee they had come to scent out heresy. "Reasoning in their hearts." Matthew says, "within themselves." They did not speak out, but Christ read their hearts. NTC-MARKhendriksen89 - A Dutch poet has called man's guilt "the root of all human problems." A British psychologist has called man's sense of having been forgiven "the most healing force in the world." And how often have not specialists informed us that many patients could be dismissed from mental institutions if they were only able to convince themselves that their guilt had been blotted out! One would think, therefore, that everybody who heard Jesus say to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven" would have rejoiced with the pardoned man. But no, in the hearts of the scribes who had come here to find fault with Jesus there was no room for participation in the joy of this grievously stricken man who at this moment heard words of encouragement and cheer. In a highly derogatory manner these enemies are saying something decidedly unfavorable. However, they are not saying it out loud, only within their hearts. But hearts are very important. Are they not the mainsprings of dispositions as well as of feelings and thoughts? Does not a man's heart show what kind of a person he really is? See Mark 3:5; 6:52; 7:14-23; 8:17; 11:23; 12:30,33; Eph.1:18; 3:17; Phil.1:7; I Tim. 1:5. Cf. Prov.23:7 A.V. TNICotNT-MARKlane95 - The scribes, who are introduced into the Marcan record at this point, were men who were schooled in the written Law of God and its oral interpretation. They were admitted to a closed order of legal specialists only after they were deemed fully qualified and had been set apart through the laying on of hands. They are mentioned frequently in Mark's Gospel but only once is the reference favorable (Ch. 12:28-34). As guardians of the teaching office they challenged Jesus concerning both his message and his refusal to submit to the halakha, the oral law, which the scribes regarded as binding in its authority. Mark 2:7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies?; Why doth this man thus speak? he blasphemeth--ASV; Why does the fellow talk like that? This is blasphemy!--NEB; What does the man mean by talking like this? It is blasphemy!--Mof; who can forgive sins but God only? Who can forgive sins but God alone--RSV; Who can possibly forgive sins but God--Phi; Why doth //this\\ man /thus\ talk? he is speaking profanely! Who can forgive sins /save one\, //God\\? 'Why doth this one thus speak evil words? who is able to forgive sins except one--God?' TRNTyeager612,3 - Ti outos outws lalei; blasphAmei. tis dunatai aphienai hamartias ei mA eis ho theos; Ti (acc.sing.neut.of tis, interrogative pronoun, cause). outos (nom.sing.masc.of outos, subject of lalei, contemptuous use). outws (adverbail). lalei (3d.per.sing.pres.act.ind.of lalew, direct question). blasphAmei (3d.per.sing.pres.act.ind.of blasphAmew, aoristic). tis (nom.sing.masc.of tis, subject of dunatai, direct question). dunatai (3d.persing.pres.ind.of dunamai, aoristic). aphienai (pres.act.inf.of aphiAmi, complementary). hamartias (acc.pl.fem.of hamartia, direct object of aphienai). ei (conditional particle introducing a first-class condition). mA (negative conjunction in a first-class condition). eis (nom.sing.masc.of eis, subject of verb understood). ho (nom.sing.masc.of the article in agreement with theos). theos (nom.sing.masc.of theos, apposition). Translation: "Why is this man talking like this? He is blaspheming! Who, but God is able to forgive sins?" COMMENT: Cf. Mt.9:3; Lk.5:21. Note ti here withou dia to mean "Why?" Literally, "Because of what?" Cf.#281 for other such examples. The order of the conditional sentence is reversed. What they were asking is "If God is not able to forgive sins, who is?" Thus they implied that either Jesus was claiming to be God or that He was blaspheming. Their view was that He was blaspheming and they expressed it outright. From their point of view, the observation of the Scribes was quaite correct. If Jesus is not God incarnate, then He was indeed blaspheming, for no one can forgive sins except God. Jesus must therefore either demonstrate His deity or stand condemned as a presumptuous and blasphemous man. Ear116 - Speak Blasphemies. The Greek is stronger than the KJV implies. It says: "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming!" (NIV). blasphAmei is a complete sentence (present indicative of the verb). MitGNTwuest48,9 - "Why does this man thus speak blasphemies?" The best Greek texts have, "Why is this one speaking thus? He is blaspheming." Our word "blaspheme" is the transliteration of blasphAmew "to utter injurious speech or slander." Robertson has a valuable note here: "It was, they held, blasphemy for Jesus to assume this divine prerogative. Their logic was correct. The only flaw in it was the possibility that Jesus held a peculiar relation to God which justified His claim. So the two forces clash here as now on the dieity of Jesus Christ." Translation: "And there were certain of the scribes sitting there and debating in their hearts, Why is this one speaking in this manner? He is blaspheming. Who is able to put away sins except one person, God? MARKj&d66 - "Why doth this man thus speak?" Another reading adopted by the revisers and the critical editors. Tischendorf, Hort and Westcott is even more forcible: "Why doth this man speak thus? He blasphemeth." Speak blasphemies. "Blasphemy", says George Mackenzie, in his Laws and Customs of Scotland in Matters Criminal (Titus 3:1), "is called in law divine lese majesty or treason; and it is committed either (1) by denying that of God which belongs to him as one of his attributes, or (2) by attributing to him that which is absurd and inconsistent with his divine nature," or, as it may be added (3), by assuming one's self, or ascribing to others, what is an incommunicable property or prerogative of God. It is with a reference to this third form of the offense that the word is used in the passage before us. "Who can forgive sins but God only?" Christ had not yet said that he forgave sins; only that his sins were forgiven. Nor could he claim to forgive sins, were he only a man, without blasphemy, and when he asserts the power to forgive sins he declares that he is the Son of God. Says Geikie: "His claim of this divine power was the turning point in the life of Christ, for the accusation of blasphemy, muttered in the hearts of the rabbis present, was the beginning of a process that ended after a time on Calvary, and he knew it." NTC-MARKhendriksen90 - In their hearts, then, the scribes are carrying on a dialogue, throwing thoughts back and forth. What they are saying is this, "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming." He is claiming for himself a prerogative that belongs to God alone, and is therefore guilty of blasphemy, that is, of defiant irreverence. He is robbing God of the honor that belongs to no one else, for "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" The scribes were right in considering the remission of sins to be a divine prerogative (Ex.34:6,7a; Ps.103:12; Isa.1:18; 43:25; 44:22; 55:6,7; Jer.31:34; Mic.7:19). To be sure, there is a sense in which we, too, forgive, namely, when we earnestly resolve not to take revenge but instead to love the one who has injured us, to promote his welfare, and never again to bring up the past (Mt.6:12,15; 18:21; Lk.6:37; Eph.4:32; Col.3:13). But basically, as described, it is God alone who forgives. It is he alone who is able to remove guilt and to declare that it has actually been removed. But now the thinking of the scribes arrives at the fork in the road, and they make the wrong turn. Either: a. Jesus is what by implication he claims to be, namely, God; or b. he blasphemes, in the sense that he unjustly claims the attributes and prerogatives of deity. The scribes accept b. Not only do they commit this tragic error, but, as the following context indicates, they compound it by reasoning somewhat as follows, "It is an easy thing for him to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' for no one is able to disprove it, since no one can look into his neighbor's heart or enter the throne-room of the Almighty and discover his judicial decisions as to who is, and who is not, forgiven. On the other hand, to tell this man, 'Get up and walk' would be far more difficult, for if no cure results, as is probable, we are all here to witness his embarrassment." As they see it, therefore, Jesus is both blasphemous and flippant. TNICotNT-MARKlane95,6 - The scribes who were present on this occasion were offended by Jesus' declaration. In the OT God alone can forgive sins, and later Judaism adhered scrupulously to this understanding. The Messiah would exterminate the godless in Israel, crush demonic power and protect his people from the reign of sin, but the forgiveness of sins was never attributed to him. Jesus proclaimed the remission of sins like a prophet (II Sam. 12:13, "And Nathan said to David, 'The Lord has pardoned your sins'"). The scribes rejected this pretension to the prophetic office as so much arrogance. They sensed in Jesus' declaration of forgiveness an affront to the majesty and authority of God, which is the essence of blasphemy. The punishment for blasphemy was death by stoning, but the evidence of guilt had to be incontrovertible. The significance of the suspicion of blasphemy so early in the Galilean ministry is that it becomes the basis of a formal accusation and condemnation before the Sanhedrin at the close of the ministry (14:61-64). Jesus' pronouncement was clearly ambiguous. This ambiguity was consistent with the indirectness of revelation which characterized his ministry; there was both a revealing and a veiling of his dignity. In the declaration of vs.5 there was nothing which suggested his personal power over sin. The reaction of the scribes does not imply that they have understood otherwise. They object to Jesus' conviction that he can speak for God. Jesus did exercise the divine prerogative but in a veiled way that could be recognized unambiguously only after the resurrection. Mark 2:8 And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit; Now Jesus at once felt in His spirit--Wms; Jesus, at once aware, through his spiritual insight--Rieu; that they so reasoned within themselves,; that they thus questioned...--RSV; that this was what they were thinking--NEB; that they were pondering thus within themselves--Nor; he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts? said to them, Why do you question thus...--RSV; said to them: Why do you harbour thoughts like these--NEB; said to them, Why must you argue like this in your minds--Phi; And Jesus saith [unto them]-- Why /these things\ are ye deliberating in your hearts? And immediately Jesus, having known in his spirit that they thus reason in themselves, said to them, 'Why these things reason ye in your hearts? TRNTyeager613,4 - kai euthus epignous ho IAsous tw pneumati autou hoti houtws dialogizontai en heautois legei autois, Ti tauta dialogizesthe en tais kardiais humwn; kai (continuative conjunction). euthus (adverbial). epignous (aor.act.part.nom.sing.masc.of epiginwskw, adverbail, causal). ho (nom.sing.masc.of the article in agreement with IAsous). IAsous (nom.sing.masc.of IAsous, subject of legei). tw (loc.sing.neut.of the article in agreement with pneumati). pneumati (loc.sing.neut.of pneuma, sphere). autou (gen.sing.masc.of autos, possession). hoti (conjunction introducing an object cleause). houtws (adverbail). dialogizontai (3d.per.pl.pres.mid.ind.of dialogizomai, indirect discourse). en (preposition with the locative with plural pronouns). heautois (loc.pl.masc.of heautos, "among"). legei (3d.per.sing.pres.act.ind.of legw, historical). autois (dat.pl.masc.of autos, indirect object of legei). Ti (acc.sing.neut.of tis, cause, direct question). tauta (acc.pl.neut.of outos, direct object of dialogizesthe). dialogizesthe (2d.per.pl.pres.mid.ind.of dialogizomai, direct question). en (preposition with the locative of sphere). tais (loc.pl.fem.of the article in agreement with kardiais). kardiais (loc.pl.fem.of kardia, sphere). humwn (gen.pl.masc.of su, possession). Translation: "And because jesus immediately realized in His spirit that they were debating this question in their own minds, He said to them, 'Why are you debating these things in your hearts?'" COMMENT: euthus here reveals how quickly our Lord perceived their thoughts. The participle epignous is causal. It was because He knew what they were thinking that He said what He did to them. The verb of knowing calls for hoti, the objective conjunction introducing indirect discourse. How did Jesus know what they were thinking? tw pneumati - "by means of His spirit." This proves His deity. They were not saying these things aloud. It was en heautois and en tais kardiais humwn - "to themselves" and "in your hearts." Thus we have demonstrated the point in John 2:23-25. In view of the logic of the Scribes' position that only Deity can forgive sin, it is incumbent upon Jesus to show that He is God. As if His knowledge of their thoughts was insufficient to establish this fact, he now procedes to give other evidence. There is no way to check on the validity of the forgiveness of sins which Jesus had just announced to the man. He would now perform a feat the validity of which could be observed and could not be denied. MitGNT49 - "Immediately when Jesus perceived in His spirit." "Perceived" is epignous. The verbal form comes from ginwskw "to know by experience," and is ingressive aorist, speaking of entrance into a new state. The prefixed preposition epi gives the force of "fully." Our Lord was not only immediately aware of what the scribes were thinking, but was clearly and fully aware of it. "In His spirit." "Spirit" is pneuma, which has various meanings. Here it refers to the rational spirit, the power by which a human being feels, thinks, will, decides. Translation: "And immediately having become fully aware in his inner-most being that in this manner they were debating within themselves, He says to them, Why are you debating these things in your hearts?" NTC-MARKhendriksen91 - Jesus perceived in his spirit what these scribes were thinking. Their inner deliberations were not concealed from him. Cf. Mt.17:25; Jn.1:47,48; 2:25; 21:17. Had he not been God he would not have been able to penetrate so deeply into their "secret" cogitations (Ps.139; Heb.4:13). By means of questioning these men--"Why are y o u reasoning thus?" -- he sharply reprimands them. Their "dialogue" was wicked (cf. Mt.9:4), for they were accusing him falsely. They themselves were the evil ones. Was it not in order to find fault with Jesus that they had come here today, with the ultimate purpose that they might destroy him (cf. Mk.3:6)? Let them then examine their own hearts. Mark 2:9 Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy,; Which is easier...--ASV; Is it easier to say to this paralyzed man-- NEB; Which is the easier thing, to say to the paralytic-- Rieu; Thy sins be forgiven thee;; Thy sins are forgiven-- ASV; You have forgiveness for your sins--Bas; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?; ...Get up, take your stretcher and walk--Rieu; ...Stand up, take your bed and walk--NEB; Which is easier-- To say unto the paralytic, Forgiven are they sins, Or to say, Rise, [and] take up thy couch, and be walking? which is easier, to say to the paralytic, The sins have been forgiven to thee? or to say, Rise, and take up thy couch, and walk? TRNTyeager614,5 - ti estin eukopwteron, eipein tw paralutikw, aphientai sou hai hamartiai, A eipein, Egeire kai aron ton krabatton sou kai peripatei; ti (nom.sing.neut.of tis, subject of estin, direct question). estin (3d.per.sing.pres.ind.of eimi, aoristic). eukopwteron (acc.sing.neut.of eukopwteros, predicate comparative adjective). eipein (aor.act.inf.of erw, substantival, subject of estin). tw (dat.sing.masc.of the article in agreement with paralutikw). paralutikw (dat.sing.masc.of paralutikos, indirect object of eipein). aphientai (3d.per.pl.pres.pass.ind.of aphiAmi, aoristic). sou (gen.sing.masc.of su, possession). hai (nom.pl.fem.of the article in agreement with hamartiai). hamartiai (nom.pl.fem.of hamartia, subject of aphientai). A (disjunctive particle). eipein (aor.act.inf.of erw, substantival, subject of estin). egeirou (2d.pers.sing.pres.mid.impv.of egeirw, command). kai (adjunctive conjunction, joining verbs). aron (2d.per.sing.aor.act.impv.of airw, command). ton (acc.sing.masc.of the article in agreement with krabatton). krabatton (acc.sing.masc.of krabattos, direct object of aron). sou (gen.sing.masc.of su, possession). kai (adjunctive conjunction, joining verbs). peripatei (2d.per.sing.pres.act.impv.of peripatew, command). Translation: "Which is easier? To say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven?' or to say, 'Get up and pick up your stretcher and walk around'?" COMMENT: Direct question as Jesus faces the scribes who were objecting with the logical choice. Jesus asks His audience to choose between two. Cf.#783 for other uses of eukopwteros. It is easier for the skeptic to judge the validity of the latter command. There is no way for mortals to judge whether or not sins have been forgiven. But the empirical test can be appolied to the matter of healing of a paralytic, who was so helpless a moment before that he had to be carried and who now is about to be healed. Note that the first imperative is middle voice - egeirou...aron... peripatei - "lift yourself up...pick up your stretcher... walk around" i.e. carry both yourself and the stretcher. Cf. Mt.9:5; Lk.5:23. Thus our Lord sets up the test. ... Ear116,7 - Easier. eukopwteron is the comparative form of the adjective eukopos. Eu means "good" and kopos "labor." So the idea here is: "Which is easier to do?" Actually, it would be easier to say, "Your sins are forgiven," than to say, "Get up, take your mat and walk," because the results of the latter could be checked by the observer, but not the results of the former. Jesus' question must be read carefully to get the right answer. MitGNTwuest49 - "Whether" is ti, "which of two?" "Arise" is egeire, a present imperative, speaking of progressive action, literally, "be arising." "Take up" is aron, "to pick up and carry," aorist tense and imperative mode showing that the command was given with military snap and curtness, and was to be obeyed at once. "Walk" is peripatei, "to walk about," present imperative, "start walking about and keep on walking." It was a permanent cure. Translation: "Which of the two is easier to say to the paralytic? Your sins are put away; or to say, Be arising and pick up your pallet at once and carry it away, and start walking and keep on walking?" MARKj&d66,7 - "Whether is it easier to say...Thy sins be forgiven thee." To say, "Thy sins be forgiven thee," was easy, for no visible result could test the saying. To say, "Take up thy bed and walk," was not apparently so easy, for failure would cover with confusion. He said the last, leaving the inference--If I can do the most difficult, then, of curse, I can do the easier. Here we have the true character of a miracle; it is the outward manifestation of the power of God, in order that we may believe in the power of God in things that are invisible.--F.W.Robertson. As much as the soul excels the body does the forgiveness of sin rise above the cure of bodily sickness. But Christ adapts his mode of speech to their capacities, who in their carnal minds felt more influence by outward signs than by the whole putting forth of his spiritual power as availing to eternal life.-- Calvin. NTC-MARKhendriksen91 - As to which was easier to say to the paralytic, "Your sins are forgiven," or "Get us, take up your pallet and walk," do not both in an equal measure require omnipotent power? Jesus decides, however, that if, as the scribes reason, a miracle in the physical sphere is required in order to prove to them his "authority" (right plus power) in the spiritual realm, then let them see this miracle! TNICotNT-MARKlane96 - Jesus sensed the sharp disapproval of the scribes and drew the attention of those present to it by addressing them with the pointed question, "Is it easier to say to a paralysed man 'Your sins are forgiven' or to say 'Arise, pick up your mattress and walk'?" Jesus' use of a counter-question in situations of debate recurs in other narratives (Chs. 3:4; 11:30; 12:37), and appears to be characteristic of his response to conflict. It is important to appreciate its significance here. The scribes might think that a declaration of forgiveness is easier than one of healing, the fficacy of which would be open to immediate verification. This judgment seems to lie behind their contemptuous question, "Why does this fellow speak like this?" (vs.7). By use of a counter-question Jesus challenges their facile assumption that he has acted irresponsibly as a dispenser of cheap grace. It also prepares for the word of healing which demonstrates that forgiveness has actually been realized in the experience of the afflicted man. It is the declaration of forgiveness which is the more essential-- and the more difficult--of the two actions. Mark 2:10 But that ye may know; But to let you know--Gspd; But to convince you--NEB; But to prove to you--Phi; that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins,; ...hath authority...--ASV; ...has the right...--NEB; ...has authority to forgive sins while he is on earth--Knox; (he saith to the sick of the palsy,); --he said to the paralytic--RSV; --he turned to the paralyzed man--NEB; But he saith to the paralytic: 'And, that ye may know that the Son of Man hath authority on the earth to forgive sins--(he saith to the paralytic)-- TRNTyeager615,6 - hina de eidAte hoti exousian echei ho huios tou anthrwpou aphienai hamartias epi tAs gAs - legei tw paralutikkw, hina (conjunction introducing a purpose clause). de (inferential conjunction). eidAte (2d.per.pl.aor.act.subj.of horaw, purpose). hoti (conjunction introducing an object clause in indirect discourse). exousian (acc.sing.fem.of exousia, direct object of echei). echei (3d.per.sing.pres.act.ind.of echw, aoristic). ho (nom.sing.masc.of the article in agreement with huios). huios (nom.sing.masc.of huios, subject of echei). tou (gen.sing.masc.of the article in agreement with anthrwpou). anthrwpou (gen.sing.masc.of anthrwpos, designation). aphienai (pres.act.inf.of aphiAmi, complementary). hamartias (acc.pl.fem.of hamartia, direct object of aphienai). epi (preposition with the genitive of physical place description). tAs (gen.sing.fem.of the article in agreement with gAs). gAs (gen.sing.fem.of gA, place description). legei (3d.per.sing.pres.act.ind.of legw, historical). tw (dat.sing.masc.of the article in agreement with paralutikw). paralutikw (dat.sing.masc.of paralutikos, indirect object of legei). Translation: "Therefore this is in order that you can know that the Son of Man has authority upon the earth to forgive sins.." - He said to the paralytic,..." COMMENT: de here seems clearly to be inferential. Jesus had just presented them with a choice. Was it easier to forgive sins - an authority which the scribes were unwilling to give to Jesus - or to heal a paralyzed man? The latter, if it occurred, could be substantiated on empirical grounds. Put in another way, Jesus was saying, "If I heal the man how can you deny that I have power to forgive sins." Therefore (inferential de) He proceded to heal the paralytic. The hina clause with the subjunctive in eidAte is purpose. What does Jesus want them to understand? The hoti clause supplies the answer. He wants them to know that He is the Son of Man, the Messiah, Who has come to earth to forgive sins. Since it is as easy to believe that as to believe that He had the power to heal, He proceded to heal the man. Note exousian in emphasis, the first word in the indirect discourse passage. So much of Jesus' remark was directed to the Scribes and Pharisees present, and incidentally to the rest of the people standing there. Then turning to the paralytic He siad what is recored in vs.11. Jesus here bases the proof for His person upon the validity of His work as He did in John 14:11. Ear117 - Power. Again the Greek word is exousia, "authority," not dunamis, "power" (KJV). MitGNTwuest49,50 - "That ye might know." "That" is hina "in order that," introducing a purpose clause. "Know" is oida, speaking of absolute, positive, beyond a peradventure of a doubt, knowledge. "Power" is not dunamis here as in Romans 1:16, namely, power in the sense of that which overcomes resistance, but exousia, delegated authority. The word is derived from exesti, "it is permitted, it is lawful." It means literally "to be out of." When a person delegates someone to do something for him and in his name, he is in a sense in that person, doing that very thing which he asked the other one to do. The Son of Man on earth has the delegated authority, as the Son of God, from God the Father, to forgive sins. It is the answer to the reasonings of the scribes, "Who can forgive sins but God only?" By their question, the scribes have given just another demonstration of the deity of the Messiah, for His miracle proved that His claims were true. Translation: "But in order that you may have absolute knowledge of the fact that the Son of Man holds authority to forgive sins on the earth,--He says to the paralytic, MARKj&d67 - III. The Power Of The Son Of Man. "That ye may know." By doing that which is capable of being put to proof, I will vindicate my right and power to do that which in its very nature is incapable of being proved. By these visible tides of God's grace I will give you to know in what direction the great under-currents of his love are setting, and that both are obedient to my word. "The Son of man" cannot simply mean a man, or a mere man, for this would be untrue in fact, since the powers in question do not belong to men as such, nor could any reason be assigned for this circuitous expression of so simple an idea. The true sense is determined by Daniel 7:13, where the phrase is confessedly applied to the Messiah, as a partaker of our nature, a description which itself implies a higher nature, or, in other words, that he is called the Son of man because he is the Son of God. This official application of the term accounts for the remarkable and interesting fact that it is never used by any other person in the gospel, nor of Christ by any but himself. Hath power on earth to forgive sins. "Authority" is a better rendering than "power," and it is so given by the American Revision Committee. He had "authority" from the Father who had sent him, and who had committed judgment to his hands on earth. Not merely authority while on the earth to forgive sins, nor authority to forgive sins committed on the earth, but authority to exercise the function of forgiveness of sins upon the earth; that is, that ye may know that this is the Messiah's earthly mission. Bengel finely remarks: "This saying savors of heavenly origin." The Son of man, as God manifest in man's flesh, has on man's earth that power which in its fountain and essence belongs to God in heaven.--Alford. Sins are against God, and therefore only God can forgive them; for in the nature of things only he can forgive against whom the offense has been committed. MARKbarclay42,3,4 - Jesus, as we have seen, had already attracted the crowds. Because of that He had attracted to Himself the notice of the official leaders of the Jews. The Sanhedrin was the supreme court of the Jews. One of its great functions was to be the strict guardian of orthodoxy. For instance, it was the Sanhedrin's duty to deal with any man who was a false prophet. It seems that the Sanhedrin had sent out a kind of scouting party to check up on Jesus; and they were sitting there critically watching everything that was going on. When they heard Jesus say to the man that his sins were firgiven it came to them as a shattering shock. It was an essential of the Jewish faith that only God can forgive sins. For any man to claim to do so was to insult God; that was blasphemy and the penalty for blasphemy was death by stoning (Lev. 24:16). At the moment they were not ready to launch their attack in public, but it was not difficult for Jesus to see how their minds were working. So he determined to fling down a challenge and to meet them on their own ground. It was their own firm belief that sin and sickness were indissolubly linked together. A sick man was a sinning man or a man who had sinned. So Jesus asked them a question: "Whether is it easier to say to this man, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'?" Any charlatan could say, "Your sins are forgiven." There was no possibility of ever demonstrating whether his words were effective or not; such a statement was completely uncheck- able. But to say, "Get up and walk" was to say something whose effectiveness would either be proved or disproved there and then. So Jesus said in effect; "You say that I have no right to forgive sins? You hold as a matter of belief that if this man is ill he is a sinner and he cannot be cured till he is forgiven? Very well, then, watch this!" So Jesus spoke the word and the man was cured. The experts in the law were hoist with their own petard. On their own stated beliefs the man could not be cured, unless he was forgiven. He was forgiven. Therefore, Jesus' claim to forgive sin must be true. Jesus must have left a completely baffled set of legal experts; and, worse, He must have left them in a baffled rage. Here was something that must be dealt with; if this went on all orthodox religion would be shattered and destroyed. In this incident Jesus had signed His own death warrant--and He knew it. But for all that it is an extremely difficult incident. What does it mean that Jesus can forgive sin? There are three possible ways of looking at this. (i) We could take it that what Jesus was doing was that He was conveying God's forgiveness to the man. After David had sinned and after Nathan had rebuked him into terror and after David had humbly confessed his sin; Nathan said: "The Lord also hath put away thy sins; thou shalt not die." (II Sam.12:1-13). Nathan was not forgiving David's sin, but he was conveying God's forgiveness to David and assuring him of it. So we could say that what Jesus was doing was that He was assuring the man of God's forgiveness, conveying to the man something which God had already given him. That is certainly true, but it does not read as if it was the whole truth. (ii) We could take it that Jesus was acting as God's representative. John says: "The Father judgeth no man but hath committed all judgment unto the Son." (Jn.5:22). If judgment is committed to Jesus, then so must forgiveness also be. Let us take a human analogy. Analogies are always imperfect but we can only think in human terms. A man may give another man a power of attorney; that means to say that he has given that man the absolute disposal of his goods and property. He agrees that the other man should act for him, and that the other man's actions should be regarded precisely and exactly as his own. We could take it that that is what God did with Jesus, that God entrusted Jesus, delegated to Jesus, His powers and privileges, and that the word Jesus spoke was none other than the word of God. (iii) We can take it in still another way. The whole essence of Jesus' life is that in Jesus we see clearly displayed the attitude of God to men. Now that attitude was the very reverse of what men had thought God's attitude to be. It was not an attitude of stern, severe, austere jus- tice. It was not an attitude of continual demand. It was an attitude of perfect love, and of a heart yearning with love and eager to forgive. Again let us use a human analogy. Lew- is Hind in one of his essays tells us of the day that he discovered his father. He had always respected and admired his father; but he had always been more than a little afraid of him. He was in church with his father one Sunday. It was a hot drowsy day. He grew sleepier and sleepier. He could not keep his eyes open as the waves of sleep engulfed him. His head nodded. He saw his father's arm go up; and he was sure that his father was going to shake or strike him. And then he looked up and saw his father smile gently, and the father's arm went round the boy's shoulder and cuddled the lad to himself that he might rest the more comfortable and held him close with the clasp of love. That day Lewis Hind discovered that his father was not as he had thought him to be, that his father loved him. That is what Jesus did for men and for God. Jesus literally brought men God's forgiveness upon earth. Without Him they would never have even remotely known about it. "I tell you," He said to the man, "and I tell you here and now, upon earth, you are a forgiven man." Jesus showed men perfectly the attitude of God to men. He could say, "I forgive," because in Him God was saying, "I forgive." TNICotNT-MARKlane96,7 - Vs.10 constitutes a well-known crux in the interpretation of this pericope. Structurally, there is an awkward change of addressee in the middle of the verse. Jesus appears to be addressing the scribes: "But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"; the text, however, proceeds with the abrupt transition, "he says to the paralytic, 'I say unto you...'" A more significant problem arises from the public use of "Son of Man" so early in Jesus' ministry. In the presence of unbelieving scribes Jesus appears to make an open and unreserved claim to be the Son of Man with authority to forgive sins. "Son of Man" is a designation of transcendent dignity. With the exception of Ch. 2:10 and 28, it does not enter the Marcan record until after the acknowledgement that Jesus is the Messiah in Ch. 8:29. Then it occurs twelve times and provides the key to Jesus' self-disclosure to his disciples. Basic to Mark's theology of the cross and resurrection is the conviction that there was no unreserved disclosure of the Son of Man until after the resurrection; prior to that time there was a veiled disclosure to men of faith, not unbelief (see on Ch.9:9). The thought that the Lord affirmed his dignity and function before the scribes during his Galilean ministry is in conflict both with general probability and more particularly with Mark's test- imony concerning Jesus' consistent refusal to reveal himself to the scribes, priests and elders who challenged his authority (cf. Ch. 11:33). To hold that he did so in Galilee contradicts the posture he assumed before unbelief throughout his earthly ministry. A common approach to these difficulties is to treat vs. 5b-10 as an interpolation into a healing narrative in which vs.11 originally followed verse 5a: "And when Jesus saw their faith he said to the paralytic, 'I say to you, Arise, take up your mattress and go home.'" There is no support for this radical expedient other than the disjointed construction in vs.10 and 11. If verse 10 is momentarily left out of consideration, the narrative is concerned with a single question of fact: is the declaration of pardon uttered by Jesus true and effective? The fact of pardon is announced in vs.5, questioned in vs.6-9, validated by the healing in vs.11, and recognized by the crowd in vs.12. This homogeneous development demonstrates the literary unity of the pericope. It also puts in clear relief the "commentary" character of vs.10. It is necessary to recognize that Mark is responsible for vs.10 in its entirety. The awkward syntactical structure is deliberate and functional. It has been shown that in Hellenistic and Byzantine Greek a purpose clause is used to introduce an independent proposition expressing a decision or, more often, a weakened commandment, prayer or desire. The Marcan clause should be translated, "Know that the Son of Man has authority...," rather than "in order that you may know that the Son of Man has authority..." Vs.10a is a parenthetical statement addressed by the evangelist to the Christian readers of the Gospel to explain the significance of the closing phase of the healing for them. In vs.5 nothing necessarily affirms the personal power of Jesus over sin. The significance of Jesus' action remained veiled for the scribes and the multitude. They were startled and recognized that Jesus had proved that the sins of the paralytic had really been pardoned. Nevertheless, they did not recognize the authority of Jesus to remit sins. The function of vs.10b ("he said to the paralytic...") is to indicate the end of Mark's "commentary" and the return to the incident itself. This is the only place in the Gospel where the pardon of sins is associated with the Son of Man. Nowhere else in the Synoptic or apocalyptic tradition is it suggested that the Son of Man can forgive sins. It was only in the light of the resurrection that the primitive Church recognized unequivocally the full extent of Jesus' authority. Jesus demonstrated in this incident that he was more than a prophet; the power manifested in the remission of sins and the healing of the paralyzed man belonged properly to him. The risen Christ still exercises the remission of sins on earth. The purpose of Mark's commentary is to make the community of believers aware that they have experienced the messianic forgiveness of the Son of Man. Mark 2:11 I say unto thee, Arise,; I bid you rise--Mon; I tell you, get up--Gspd; I say to you, stand up--NEB; and take up thy bed, take up your pallet--RSV; take up your mat--Wey; and go thy way into thine house.; and go unto thy house--ASV; and go home--RSV; /To thee\ I say, Rise, take up thy couch, and be going thy way unto thy house. I say to thee, Rise, and take up thy couch, and go away to thy house;' TRNTyeager616,7 - Soi legw, egeire aron ton krabatton sou kai hupage eis ton oikon sou. Soi (dat.sing.masc.of su, indirect object of legw). legw (1st.per.sing.pres.act.ind.of legw, aoristic). egeire (2d.per.sing.pres.act.impv.of egeirw, command). aron (2d.per.sing.aor.act.impv.of airw, command). ton (acc.sing.masc.of the article in agreement with krabatton). krabatton (acc.sing.masc.of krabattos, direct object of airon). sou (gen.sing.masc of su, possession). kai (adjunctive conjunction joining verbs). hupage (2d.per.sing.pres.act.impv.of hupagw, command). eis (preposition with the accusative of extent). ton (acc.sing.masc.of the article in agreement with oikon). oikon (acc.sing.masc.of oikos, extent). sou (gen.sing.masc.of su, possession). Translation: "To you I say, 'Get up. Take up your stretcher and go away to your house.'" COMMENT: Soi legw - to distinguish this speech from that which He said to the Scribes in vs.10. Jesus had emphasized His authority (exousian) in vs.10. Now He exercises it with the three imperatives - egeire, aron and hupage - "get up...pick up and go." Anyone could have delivered to the paralytic the three imperatives as Jesus did. The question has to do with the results, if any, that follow the orders. ... Ear117 - House. The correct contemporary translation is: "I tell you, get up, take your mat, and go home." MitGNTwuest50 - "Go thy way" is the present imperative of hupagw which means "to withdraw one's self, to depart, go away." The word is used of the final departure of one who ceases to be another's companion or attendant. The use of the word here indicates the desire of our Lord that the paralytic when healed, would not remain with Him and thus attract unnecessary attention to Him. For the same reason He forbade the man cleansed from leprosy to publish it abroad. It would only increase the antagonism of the religious leaders and thus hinder His preacing ministry. Translation: "To you I say, Be arising, pick up your pallet at once, and be going away into your home." MARKj&d67,8 - Arise, take up thy bed. A light mattress. Other men brought him on the bed; he can now carry himself away, bed and all. Christ's argument here affords a fair test of all priestly claims to absolve from sin. If the priest has power to remit the eternal punishment of sin, he should be able, certainly, to remit the physical and temporal punishment of sin. This Christ did; this the priest does not, and cannot do. Any popish priest can say, "Thy sins be forgiven thee," and the credulous may believe that a miracle of pardon is performed; but it is not quite so easy to perform the bodily miracle. NTC-MARKhendriksen91,2 - So to the paralytic he addresses the words, "I say to you, get up, take up your pallet and go home." Obedience to this command will prove that he, the humble yet all-glorious "Son of man" has the divine authority on earth--hence, before the door of grace is closed--to forgive sins. Here, for the first time in Mark, the term "Son of man" is found. In all it occurs fourteen times in this Gospel: twice in the beginning (2:10,28), seven times in the middle (8:31,38; 9:9,12,31; 10:33,45), and five times toward the end (13:26; 14:21; 14:41 twice; 14:61). It is Christ's self- designation, revealing something with reference to him, concealing, even more, especially to those not thoroughly acquainted with the OT. Use of the term led to the question, "Who, then, is this Son of man?" (Jn.12:34). The term characterizes Jesus as the Sufferer, the One who is going to be betrayed and killed (9:12; 14:21,41), all of this in accordance with the divine decree, voluntarily, and vicariously (10:45). His willing sacrifice in the place of his people will, however, be rewarded (8:31; 9:31; 10:33,34). Put to death he rises again. Having departed from the earth, one day he returns in glory, sitting at the right hand of the Almighty (14:26), fulfilling the prophecy of Daniel 7:13,14. So intrinsically glorious is he that this glory reaches back, as it were, through his entire life on earth. In reality he is always--even in his suffering--the glorious Son of man. While yet on earth he has the right to forgive sin (2:10) and is Lord of all, including even the sabbath (2:28). ... Mark 2:12 And immediately he arose, took up the bed,; And he arose, and straightway took up the bed--ASV; And he got up, took his stretcher at once--NEB; At once the man sprang to his feet, picked up his bed--Phi; and went forth before them all;; and went out...--RSV; and walked off in full view of them all-- Phi; insomuch that they were all amazed,; so that all were amazed--ABUV; so that they were astounded--NEB; The result was that they were all dumfounded--Wms; They were all filled with awe--Rieu; and glorified God, saying,; gave the glory to God, and said--Wey; and acknowledged the power of God, saying--Gspd; and began to praise God and say--Wms; We never saw it on this fashion.; We never saw it thus--ABUV; We never saw the like--Knox; ...anything like this--RSV; And he arose, and /straightway taking up the couch\ went forth before all,--so that all were beside themselves, and were glorifying God, [saying]-- //Thus\\ we /never\ saw it! and he rose immediately, and having taken up the couch, he went forth before all, so that all are astonished, and do glorify God, saying--'Never thus did we see.' TRNTyeager617,8 - kai AgerthA kai euthus aras ton krabatton exAlthen emprosthen pantwn, hwste existasthai pantas kai doxazein ton theon legontas hoti Houtws oudepote eidomen. kai (inferential conjunction). AgerthA (3d.per.sing.aor.pass.ind.of egeirw, constative). kai (continuative conjunction). euthus (adverbial). aras (aor.act.part.nom.sing.masc.of airw, adverbial, temporal). ton (acc.sing.masc.of the article in agreement with krabatton). krabatton (acc.sing.masc.of krabattos, direct object of aras). exAlthen (3d.per.sing.aor.ind.of exerchomai, ingressive). emprosthen (improper preposition, with the ablative). pantwn (abl.pl.masc.of pas, separation). hwste (conjunction introducing a result clause). existasthai (pres.mid.inf.of existAmi, result clause). pantas (acc.pl.masc.of pas, general reference). kai (adjunctive conjunction, joining infinitives). doxazein (pres.act.inf.of doxazw, result clause). ton (acc.sing.masc.of the article in agreement with theon). theon (acc.sing.masc.of theos, direct object of doxazein). legontas (pres.act.part.acc.pl.masc.of legw, adverbial, manner). hoti (recitative). Houtws (adverbial). oudepote (intensifying negative compound). eidomen (1st.per.pl.aor.act.ind.of horaw, culminative). Translation: "Therefore he was raised up and without delay he picked up the stretcher and walked out before all, with the result that all were besides themselves and glorified God saying, 'Such as this we have never once witnessed.'" COMMENT: kai is inferential. It was because of Jesus' command that the paralytic complied. Note that AgerthA is passive. He was raised by the power of God. kai euthus is important. The action following his being raised up was immediate. There was no staggering about; no chafing of feet and legs; no experimental steps, such as would normally be expected from a man hitherto helpless. There was no uncertainty. The paralytic acted with the same alacrity and dispatch that any well person would have displayed. The temporal participle aras in relation to the verbvs gives us the order of his actions. He was raised up; he picked up the stretcher and he walked out. emprosthen pantwn - "before all." This was no secret affair. What Mark says is of course obvious since he had already said that the room was so crowded that the man was brought down to Jesus through a hole in the roof. The result clause has two infinitives. The people were thrilled, titilated, shocked and perhaps frightened out of their wits. Cf.#992 for the meaning of the word. The testimony of the people was to the effect that this was something new in Capernaum and that they were willing to give God all of the credit - an affirmation that did nothing to help the Scribes and Pharisees. There was little doubt in the minds of the people that God incarnate was there. Therefore His announcement that the man's sins were forgiven was no blasphemy, as far as they were concerned. Cf.Mt.9:7,8; Lk.5:25,26. MitGNTwuest50,1 - The word order in the Greek text is, "And he arose and immediately, having picked up his pallet, went out before all of them." "They were all amazed." The verb is existAmi, literally, "to stand out of." Our word "ecstasy" comes from this word. A person in an ecstasy might just as well be standing out of his body so far as registering sense impressions is concerned. His attention is so taken up with the one thing, that he notices nothing else. These people were in a sense taken out of their usual routine of sense impressions by the wonder of the miracle, and had their entire attention taken up with the marvelous cure, and this, to the point of being almost beside themselves. This was the intensity of their amazement. Translation: "And he arose, and immediately, having picked up his pallet, he went out before all of them, so that they were astounded for some time, and were glorifying God, saying, In this manner, never have we seen it." MARKj&d68 - Insomuch that they were all amazed. Amazed at the high claims of Jesus and at the demonstration that his claims were well founded. The scribes had whispered in their hearts the charge of blasphemy, but the people saw a manifestation of divine power and glorified God, because, as Luke says, "God had given such power to men." They looked upon Jesus, not as Divine, but as the commissioned agent of the Divine will. IV. Power To Forgive Sins. -- This whole incident illustrates: (1) The difference between the spiritual authority of Christ and that of his apostles, none of whom assumed to forgive sins. See Acts 8:22-24. (2) It affords a test for all claims of priests or bishops to pardon sin, or to officially pronounce the absolution of sin. If they possessed the power to absolve from sin they should be able, like Christ, to relieve from the temporal consequences of sin. Romish priests claim a prerogative that was never claimed by Peter or the other apostles, which belongs to the Lord alone, and which it is not only presumption but blasphemy for any man or set of men to claim who cannot manifest divine credentials to confir their claims. NTC-MARKhendriksen92 - ...The man believed that the One who ordered him to get up, take up his pallet and go home would also enable him to obey the order. So "before"--here meaning "in full view of"--all the onlookers he at once obeyed the threefold command and went home (probably right here in Capernaum?). Effect on those who had heard what Jesus said and had taken note of the glorious transformation experienced by this man: so that they were all astonished and glorified God, saying, Never have we see anything like this. Mark reports the people's astonishment. Never in all their past experience have they witnessed anything similar. According to Matthew the crowd was "awe-struck." Luke relates that all were "seized with astonishment...and filled with awe," causing them to exclaim, "We hve seen strange things today." Common to these three Gospel writers is the remark that the people glorified God: "all" (thus Mark and Luke) ascribed to God the honor and splendor due to him. This "all," as often, is very general, and does not mean that scornful and fault-finding scribes suddenly experienced a genuine change of heart and mind. That men of this type remained hostile and became more and more hardened is clear from 2:16, 24; 3:2,6,22. Nevertheless, the response of glorifying God was sufficiently general to warrant the use of the word "all." And no doubt among the many who did exalt him there were those upon whom Christ's words and deeds had made a lasting and saving impression. Probably there were also others, people who in their excitement uttered loud words of praise to the Most High (cf. Dan. 4:34; 6:26,27), but whose hearts remained unreborn. See Mark 7:6 TNICotNT-MARKlane98,9 - When Jesus caused the paralytic to walk before the eyes of his critics, they were forced to recognize that this declaration of forgiveness had been effective. The inter-relationship of forgiveness and healing is emphasized by the conclusion to the narrative: having received the forgiveness of God, the afflicted man receives healing. This is the nature of the salvation which Jesus brings. The healing of the paralytic was more than a display of mercy to a wretched man. The announcement and presentation of radical healing to a man in his entire person was a sign of the Kingdom of God drawn near. The paralytic experienced the fulfilment of God's promise that the lame would share in the joy of the coming salvation (Isa. 35:6; Jer.31:8). The demonstration that God had come near to his people was startling. All present glorified God because he redeemed men from every distress. It has been objected that Mark's "all" is too comprehensive, "an excusable and fairly obvious overstatement" which was not intended to include the scribes. The objection is unfounded. They too were thoroughly shaken by the extraordinary event which had occurred. Their glorification of God does not mean that they thanked him for sending Jesus, or even that they recognized the relationship between Jesus' declaration of forgiveness and the actual restoration to health of the paralytic. It consisted rather in the statement "we have never seen anything like this." In the eyes of the evangelist, this amounted to an acknowledgment of the dignity of Jesus in spite of their intentions.