17-9. The Healing of the Paralytic

9. The Healing of the Paralytic Mat 9:1-8; Mark 2:1-12; Luk 5:17-26.^[1] The account of St. Luke would leave us altogether in ignorance where this miracle of healing took place; but from St. Matthew we learn that it was in “his own city,” and St. Mark tells us that by this we are to understand Capernaum. We have, therefore, here one of the “mighty works,” with which the Lord at a later day upbraided that impenitent city (Mat 11:23). “And it came to pass on a certain day as He was teaching, that there were Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by, which were come out of every town of Galilee, and Judaea, and Jerusalem.” It may have been a conference, more or less friendly upon the part of these, which had brought together as listeners and spectators a multitude so great that all avenues of approach to the house were blocked up; “there was no room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door; “^[2] and thus for later comers no opportunity, by any ordinary way, of near access to the Lord (cf. Mat 12:46-47). Among these were some “bringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne of four.” Only St. Mark records for us this last little circumstance, namely, that the bearers were four; only he and St. Luke the novel method to which they had recourse for bringing him before the notice of the great Healer of bodies and of souls: “When they could not come nigh unto Him for the press, they uncovered the roof where He was; and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy. lay” They first ascended to the roof; for, in Fuller’s words, “love will creep, but faith will climb, where it cannot go;” yet this was not so difficult, because commonly there was a flight of steps on the outside of the house, reaching to the roof; in addition to, or sometimes instead of, an internal communication of the same kind. Such every traveller in those parts of southern Spain which bear a permanent impress of Eastern habits will have seen. Our Lord assumes the existence of these outside stairs when He gives this counsel, “Let him that is on the housetop not come down to take anything out of his house” (Mat 24:17), he is to take the nearest and shortest way of escaping into the country: but he could’ only avoid the necessity of descending through the house by the existence of such steps as these.^[3] Some will have it that the bearers here, having thus reached the roof, did no more than let down their sick through the grating or trap-door, already existing there (cf. 2Ki 1:2), or at most, enlarged such an aperture, till it would allow the passage of their sick man and his bed. Others,^[4] that Jesus was sitting in the open court, round which the houses in the East are commonly built; that to this they got access by the roof, and breaking through the breast-work or battlement (Deu 22:8) made of tiles, which guarded the roof, and removing the linen awning which was stretched over the court, so let down their burden in the midst before the Lord. But all this is without necessity and without warrant. It is impossible to read the words of St. Mark otherwise than as saying that a portion of the actual roof was removed, and so the bed on which the palsied man lay let down before the Lord.^[5] This will not seem so strange if only we keep in mind that it was in all likelihood an upper chamber ὑπερῶον, where were assembled those that were drawn together to hear the Lord. This, as the most retired (2Ki 4:10, LXX; Acts 9:37), and probably the largest room in the house, extending oftentimes over its whole area, was much used for such purposes as that which now drew Him and his hearers together^[6] (Acts 1:13; Acts 20:8). The merciful Son of man, never taking ill that faith which brings men to Him, but only the unbelief which keeps them from Him, is in nothing offended at this interruption; yea, rather beheld with an eye well pleased this act of theirs: “Jesus, seeing their faith, said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, ^[7] be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven^[8] thee.” Had we only the account of St. Matthew, there would be nothing to tell us wherein their special faith consisted, or why their faith, more than that of many others who in like manner brought their sick to Jesus, should have been noted; but the other Evangelists explain what he would have left obscure. From them we have learned that it was a faith which pressed through hindrances, and was not to be turned aside by difficulties. ^[9] Many, as Jerome and Ambrose, understand by “their faith” the faith of the bearers only; but we must not so limit the words. To them the praise justly was due;^[10] but the sick man must have approved all which they did, or it would not have been done: so that Chrysostom, with greater reason, concludes that it was alike their faith and his, which the Lord saw, approved, and rewarded. The words with which the Lord welcomes this suppliant furnish a good example of the way in which He gives before we ask, and better than we ask. This poor man had not as yet asked anything, save, indeed, in the dumb asking of that ear nest effort to come near to Him; and all that he dared to seek even in that, certainly all that his friends and bearers sought for him, was that his body might be healed. Yet there was, no doubt, in himself a deep feeling of his sickness in its innermost root, as growing out of sin, perhaps as the penalty of some especial sin whereof he was conscious; and some expression of contrition, some exclamation of a penitent heart, may have been the immediate occasion of these gracious words of forgiveness. From that “Son, be of good cheer” we gather that he was one evidently burdened and cast down, and, as the Lord saw, with a more, intolerable weight than that of his bodily sicknesses and pains. In other instances the forgiveness of sins follows the outward healing—for we may certainly presume that such a forgiveness was the portion of the thankful Samaritan (Luk 17:19), of the impotent man, first healed, and then warned to sin no more (John 5:14),—but here the remission of sin takes the precedence: nor is it hard to see the reason of this. In the sufferer’s own conviction there existed so close a connexion between his sin and his plague, that the outer healing would have been scarcely intelligible to him, would have hardly brought home to him the sense of a benefit, unless in his conscience he had been also set free; perhaps he was incapable even of receiving the benefit, till the message of peace had been spoken to his spirit. Jas 5:14-15, supplies an interesting parallel, where the same inner connexion is assumed as here between the raising of the sick and the forgiving of his sin. The others, mentioned above, with a slighter sense than this man of the relation between their sin and their suffering, were not first forgiven and then healed; but their thankfulness for their bodily healing was that which first made them receptive of that better blessing, the “grace upon grace” which afterwards they obtained. The absolving words are not to be regarded as optative merely, as a desire that it so might be, but as declaratory that so it was; the man’s sins were forgiven. Nor yet were they declaratory alone of something which past in the mind and intention of God; but, even as the words were spoken, there was shed abroad in the heart of the man the sense of forgiveness and reconciliation with God. For indeed God’s justification of a sinner is not merely a word spoken about him, but a word spoken to him and in him; not an act of God’s immanent in Himself, but transitive upon the sinner. In it there is the love of God, and so the consciousness of that love, shed abroad in his heart upon whose behalf the absolving decree has been uttered (Rom 5:5). The murmurers and cavillers understood rightly what the Lord meant by these words; that He, so speaking, did not merely wish and desire that this man’s sins might be forgiven him; that He did not, as the Church does now, in the name of another and wielding a delegated power, but in his own name, forgive him. They also understood rightly concerning the forgiveness of sins itself, that it is a divine prerogative; that, as no man can remit a debt save he to whom the debt is due, so no one can forgive sin save He against whom all sin is committed, that is, God; and out of this feeling, true in itself, but most false in their present application of it, they said, “Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God only?”

Let us note, as Olshausen here invites us to do, the profound insight into the relations between God and the creature, involved in the scriptural use of the word “blasphemy.” Profane antiquity knew nothing like it. For it “to blaspheme” meant only to speak something evil of a person^[11] (a use not foreign to Scripture, 1Co 4:13; Tit 3:2; 2Pe 2:2; Jude 1:8), and then, to speak something of an evil omen. Only the monotheistic religion included in blasphemy not merely outward words of cursing and outrage against the name of God, but all snatchings on the part of the creature at honours which of right belonged only to the Creator (Mat 26:65; John 10:36). Had He who in his own name declared, “Thy sins be forgiven thee,” been less than the only-begotten Son. of the Father, the sharer in all prerogatives of the Godhead, He would indeed have spoken blasphemies, as they deemed. Believing Him only a man, they were right in saying He blasphemed. Their sin was not in this, but in that self-chosen blindness of theirs, which would not allow them to recognize any glory in Him higher than man’s; in that, having arrived at a foregone conclusion as to what kind of Saviour they would have, they wilfully closed their eyes to all in their own Scriptures which set Him forth as other and higher than they had themselves resolved to have Him.^[12]

It is not for nothing that the Lord is said to have “perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves.” His soul was human, but his “spirit” was divine; and by this divine faculty He perceived the unuttered counsels and meditations of their hearts; “^[13] and perceiving these He laid them bare: “why reason ye these things in your hearts?” Thus first He gave them to understand that He was more than they esteemed,^[14] since the thoughts of hearts were open and manifest to Him, while yet God only searches into these (1Sa 16:7; 1Ch 28:9; 2Ch 6:30; Jer 17:10); only of the divine Word can it be affirmed that “He is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Heb 4:12). “Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?” In this question He indicates to them the exact line in which their hard and evil thoughts of Him were at that moment travelling. The charge which they inwardly made against Him, was not merely that He challenged divine attributes, but that, doing so, He at the same time kept Himself safe from detection, challenging those wherein, by the very nature of things, it was not possible to prove the falsehood of his pretensions. Something of this sort they were murmuring within themselves, “These honours are easily snatched. Any pretender may go about the world, saying to this man and that, Thy sins be forgiven thee! But where is the evidence that his word is allowed and ratified in heaven, that this which is spoken on earth is sealed in heaven? The very nature of the power which this man asserts for himself secures him from detection; for this releasing of a man from the condemnation of his sin is an act wrought in the inner spiritual world, attested by no outer and visible sign; therefore it is easily claimed, since any disproof of it is impossible.” And our Lord’s answer, meeting this evil thought in their hearts, is in fact this: “You accuse Me that I am claiming a safe power, since, in the very nature of the benefit bestowed, no sign follows, nothing to testify whether I have challenged it rightfully or not. I will therefore put myself now to a more decisive proof. I will speak a word, I will claim a power, which if I claim falsely, I shall be convinced upon the instant to be an impostor and a deceiver. But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins (He saith to the sick of the palsy), I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, ^[15] and go thy way into thine house. ^[16] By the effects, as they follow or do not follow, you may judge whether I have a right to say to him, Thy sins be forgiven thee.”^[17] In our Lord’s argument it must be carefully noted that He does not ask, “Which is easiest, to forgive sins, or to raise a sick man?” for it could not be affirmed that that of forgiving was easier than this of healing; but, “Which is easiest, to claim this power or to claim that; to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee, or to say, Arise and walk?” And He then proceeds: “That is easiest, and I will now prove my right to say it, by saying with effect and with an outward consequence setting its seal to my truth, the harder word, Rise up and walk. By doing that which is submitted to the eyes of men, I will attest my right and power to do that which, in its very nature, lies out of the region of proof. By these visible tides of God’s grace I will give you to know in what way the great under-currents of his love are setting, and make clear that those and these are alike obedient to my word. From this which I will now do openly and before you all, you may conclude that it is no ’robbery’ (Php 2:6) upon my part to claim also the power of forgiving men their sins.”^[18] Thus, to use a familiar illustration of our Lord’s argument, it would be easier for a man, equally. ignorant of French and Chinese, to claim to know the last than the first; not that the language itself is easier; but that, in the one case, multitudes could disprove his claim; and, in the other, hardly a scholar or two in the land. In “power on earth” there lies a tacit opposition to “power in heaven.” “This power is not exercised, as you deem, only by God in heaven; but also by the Son of man on earth. You rightly assert that it is only exercised by Him who dwelleth in the heavens; but He, who in the person of the Son of man, has descended also upon earth, has brought down this power with Him here. On earth also is One who can speak, and it is done. “We have at Mat 16:19; Mat 18:18, “on earth” and “in heaven,” set over against one another in the same antithesis., The parallels, however, are imperfect, since the Church binds and looses by a committed, and not an inherent, power;, as has been beautifully said, Facit in terris opera ccelorum,—but only in the name and might of her heavenly Head. It is at first somewhat surprising that as “Son of man” He claims this power; for this of forgiving sins being a divine attribute, we might rather have expected that He would now have called Himself by his better name, since only as Son of God such prerogative was his.^[19] Alexandrian fathers, in conflict with the Nestorians, pressed this passage in proof of the entire communication of all the properties of Christ’s divine nature to his human; so that whatever one had, was so far common to both that it might also be predicated of the other.^[20] Assuredly, unless the two natures had been indissolubly knit together in a single person, no such language could have been used; yet “Son of man” being the standing title whereby the Lord was well pleased to designate Himself, bringing out as it did that He was at once one with humanity, and the crown of humanity, it is simpler to regard the term here as merely equivalent to. Messiah, without attempting to extort any dogmatic conclusions from it. The word of the Lord is confirmed, and sealed by a sign following. The man did not refuse to answer this appeal: “And immediately he arose, took up the bed, ^[21] and went forth before them all;” they who before blocked up his path, now making way for him, and allowing free egress from the assembly (cf. Mark 10:48-49). Of the effects of this miracle on the Pharisees nothing is told; probably there was nothing good to tell. But the people, far less hardened against the truth, far more receptive of divine impressions, “were all amazed, and they glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.” The miracle had done its office. The beholders marvelled at the wonderful work done before their eyes; and this their marvel deepened into holy fear, which found its utterance in the ascription of glory to God, “who had given such power unto men.” We need not suppose that they very accurately explained to themselves, or could have explained to others, their feeling of holy exultation, but they felt truly that what was given to one man, to the Man Christ Jesus, was given for the sake of all, and ultimately to all, that therefore it was indeed given “unto men.” They dimly understood that He possessed these powers as the true Head and Representative of the race, and therefore that these gifts to Him were a rightful subject of gladness and thanksgiving for every member of that race.

Footnotes

[1] Chrysostom mentions, in a sermon upon this healing (vol. iii. pp. 37, 38, Bened. edit.), that many in his day confounded it with that of the impotent man at Bethesda,—an error so groundless as hardly to be worth the complete refutation which he gives it. In the apocryphal Evangelium Nicodemi (see Thilo, Cod. Apocryph. vol. i. p. 55(5) there is a confusion of the two miracles.

[2] Τὰ πρὸς τὴν θύραν‚ scil. μέρη=πρόθυρον, vestibulum, atrium.

[3] The same must have existed in a Roman house, Livy, xxxix. 14. A witness, whom it is important to preserve from being tampered with, is shut up in the chamber adjoining the roof (coenaculum super aedes),—and, to make all sure, scalis ferentibus in publicum obseratis, aditu in aedes verso (see Becker, Oallus, vol. i. p. 94).

[4] Shaw, for instance, quoted in Rosenmüller (Alte und Neue Morgenland, vol. v. p. 129). He makes τὸ μέσον to signify the central court, impluvium, cava sediunu. And so, too, Titus Bostrensis (in Cramer, Catena): Εἲποι δ’ ἂν τις ὓπαιθρον εἶναι τόπον‚ εἰς ὅν διὰ τῶν κεράμων κατεβίβασαν τὴν κλίνην τοῦ παραλύτου‚ μηδὲν παντελῶς τῆς στέγης ἀνατρέψαντες. But against this use of εἰς τὸ μέσον, or rather for the common one, see Luk 4:35; Mark 3:3; Mark 14:60.

[5] Bengel: Per omnia fides ad Christum penetrat. Gerhard (Harm. Evang. 43): Pictura est quomodo in tentationibus et calamitatibus ad Christum nobis coneutur intercludere hominum judicia, quales fuerunt amici Jobi, et qui Psa 3:3 dicunt: Non est salus ipsi in Deo ejus. Item: Legis judicium et proprise conscientiae accusationes. Et quomodo per ilia omnia fides perrumpere debeat, ut in conspectum Christi Mediatoris se demittat.

[6] Tινὲς πιστότατοι‚, as in the Evangelium Nicodemi they are called.

[7] In St. Luke, "Man, thy sins are forgiven thee. "But as He addresses another sorrowful soul, "Daughter, be of good comfort" Mat 9:22), probably the tenderer appellation here also found place.

[8] Ἀϕέωνται (cf. Luk 7:48; 1Jn 2:12): the old grammarians are not at one in the explanation of this form. Some make it=ἀϕῶνται‚, 2 aor. conj., as in Homer ἀϕέῃ for ἀϕῇ; thus Eustathius. But others more lightly explain it as the præter. indic, pass. = ἀϕεῖνται; though of these again some find in it an Attic, others, more correctly, a Doric form: cf. Herod, 2:165, ἀνέωνται. This perfect passive will then stand in connexion with the perfect active ἀϕεωκα for ἀϕεῖκα (Winer, Grammatik, p. 77).

[9] Bengel: Per omnia fides ad Christum penetrat. Gerhard (Harm. Evang. 43): Pictura est quomodo in tentationibus et calamitatibus ad Christum nobis coneutur intercludere hominum judicia, quales fuerunt amici Jobi, et qui Psa 3:3 dicunt: Non est salus ipsi in Deo ejus. Item: Legis judicium et proprise conscientiae accusationes. Et quomodo per ilia omnia fides perrumpere debeat, ut in conspectum Christi Mediatoris se demittat.

[10] Tινὲς πιστότατοι‚, as in the Evangelium Nicodemi they are called.

[11] Bλασϕημεῖν as opposed to εὐϕημεῖν

[12] Augustine (Enarr. iii. in Ps. 36:25): Quis potest dimittere peccata [inquiunt] nisi solus Deus? Et quia ille erat Deus, talia cogitantes audiebat. Hoc verum de Deo cogitabant, sed Deum praesentem non videbaut. Fecit ergo... quod viderent, et dedit quod crederent.

[13] Grotius: Non ut prophetae per afflatum, sed suo spiritu.

[14] Gerhard (Harm. Evang. 43): Jesus igitur exponens Pharisaeis quid taciti apud se in intimis cordium recessibus cogitabant, ostendit se plus esse quam hominem; et eadem potestate, divinâ scilicet, qua, secreta cordium videat, se etiam peccata remittere posse.

[15] Κράββατος, or as Tischendorf always spells it, affirming that so in all the best MSS. he finds it, κράβαττος=grabatus (in Luke κλινίδιον, a mean and vile pallet used by the poorest, =σκίμπους‚ ἀσκάντης. It is a Macedonian word, entirely rejected by Greek purists (see Becker, Charikles, vol. ii. p. 121; and Lobeck, Phrynichus, p. 62). In relation to this, Sozomen (Hist. Eccl. i. 11) tells a curious story of a bishop in Cyprus, who, teaching the people from this Scripture, and having to repeat the Lord’s words, substituted σκίμπους for κράββατος, and was rebuked by another bishop present, who asked if the word which Christ used was not good enough for him to use.

[16] Compare Isaiah’s words (xxxv. 3, LXX), when he is recounting the promises of Messiah’s time: Ἰσχύσατε‚ χεῖρες ἀνειμέναι‚ καὶ λόνατα παραλελυμένα.

[17] Corn, a Lapide: Qui dicit, Remitto tibi peccata, mendacii argui non potest, sive ea reverâ remittit, sive non, quia nec peccatum nec peccati remissio oculis videri potest; qui autem dicit paralytico, Surge et ambula, se et famam suam evidenti falsitatis periculo exponit; re ipsâ, enim si paralyticus non surgat, falsitatis, imposturae et mendacii ab omnibus arguetur et convincetur... Unde signanter Christus non ait, Quid est facilius, remittere peccata, an sanare paralyticum, sed dicere, Dimittuntur tibi peccata, an dicere, Surge et ambula? Jerome (Comm. in Matt, in loc.): Utrum sint paralytico peccata dimissa, solus noverat, qui dimittebat. Surge autem et ambula, tam ille qui consurgebat, quam hi qui consurgentem videbant approbare poterant. Fit igitur carnale signum, ut probetur spirituale. Bernard (De Divers. Serm. xxv.): Blasphemare me blasphematis, et quasi ad excusandum visibilis curationis virtutem, me invisibilem dicitis usurpare. Sed ego vos potius blasphemos esse convinco, signo probans visibili invisibilem potestatem.

[18] Maldonatus, with his usual straightforward meeting of a difficulty, observes here, Poterit autem aliquis merito dubitare, quomodo Christus quod probandum erat, concludat. Nam si remittere peccata erat re verâ difficilius, dum experientiâ curati paralytici docet se quod re ipsâ facilius est, posse facere: non bene probat posse et se peccata remittere, quod erat difficilius. Respondeo, Christum tantum probare voluisse sibi esse credendum, quod bene probat ab eo, cujus probatio erat difficilior; quasi dicat, Si non fallo cum dico paralytico, Surge et ambula, ubi difficilius est probare me verum dicere, cur creditis me fallere cum dico, Remittantur tibi peccata tua? Denique ex re, quae effectu probari potest, in re, quae probari non potest, sibi fidem facit. Augustine (Exp. ad Rom. § 23): Declaravit ideo se ilia facere in corporibus, ut crederetur animas peccatorum dimissione liberare; id est, ut de potestate visibili potestas invisibilis mereretur fidem.

[19] See Tertullian (Adv. Marc, iv, 10) for a somewhat different reason why the Lord should here call Himself, Son of man.

[20] See Cyril of Alexandria, in Cramer, Catena, in loc. This is the communicatio idiomatum.

[21] Arnobius (Con. Gen. i. 45), speaking generally of Christ’s healings, but of course with allusion to this, magnifies the contrast of his so lately being carried on, and now carrying, his bed: Suos referebant lectos alienis paulo ante cervicibus lati.