2009 collage
This is one of several miracle stories in which it is the faith of friends and neighbors that is commended rather than that of the afflicted person. Other examples are found at Matthew 8:10 and Mark 7:32;8:22. But this story, attested in all the Synoptic account, goes beyond a “simple” healing narrative in that it deals with both sin and physical infirmities. Here is what the Old Testament has to say regarding the relationship between sin and illness:
“If you will listen carefully to the voice of the LORD your God...I will not bring upon you any of the diseases that I brought upon the Egyptians. For I am the LORD who heals you.” (Exodus 15:26)
“If you do not diligently observe all the words of this law...then the LORD will overwhelm both you and your offspring with severe and lasting afflictions.” (Deuteronomy 28:58-59)
“Surely he has borne our infirmities and carried our diseases; yet we accounted him stricken, struck down by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities.” (Isaiah 53:4-5a)
“There is no soundness in my flesh because of your indignation; there is no health in my bones because of my sin.” (Psalm 38:3)
And, of course, there is the attitude of Job's friends toward his illness.
In contrast, New Testament teachings are more ambiguous regarding the relationship between the two. Sin and illness are sometimes discussed together but distinguished from one another. A prime example of this is seen in the episode in question. There are virtually no differences in wording between the three parallel accounts of the paralytic's healing by Jesus. Here is the central point as related by Matthew:
“He said to the paralytic, 'Take heart, son, your sins are forgiven.' Then some of the scribes said to themselves, 'This man is blaspheming.' But Jesus, perceiving their thoughts, said, 'Why do you think evil in your hearts? Which is easier to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Stand up and walk'? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins' – he then said to the paralytic – 'Stand up, take your bed and go to your home.' And he stood up and went to his home.”
Writing from a form-critical point of view, Fitzmyer declares: “Into this miracle-story, a pronouncement story has been inserted [with the pronouncement itself preserved in Luke 5:23], which relates to it Jesus' power to forgive sins. In fact, it makes of the whole episode a story more concerned with this than with the cure itself. The joining of the two stories gives evidence of a new manifestation of Jesus' power; hitherto [in Luke's Gospel] he has been depicted curing (4:38-39,40-41; 5:12-15), exorcising (4:31-37), and working a miracle over nature (5:4-9a); now the power of the Lord that attends him is related not only to a cure but also to the forgiveness of sin.”
One does not need to agree with Fitzmyer's thesis that two diverse traditions have been artificially joined together in order to agree with his other contentions. It seems patently obvious that this episode centers just as much, if not more, on the issue of forgiveness as it does on the miraculous cure itself.
Reaction of the Critics
After Jesus' initial pronouncement to the paralytic, the scribes (and Pharisees according to Luke) openly label Jesus a blasphemer since “only God can forgive sins.” Whenever I have read this story, I will admit that I have been somewhat sympathetic to their reaction. But several commentators actually feel that these Jewish leaders may have something more that just righteous indignation as their motive in criticizing Jesus:
“Matthew 1:21 assumes that God as Israel's savior...will save Israel from its sins through Jesus as instrument of salvation and thereby subtly construct an opposition to the temple cult as institution for the remission of sins (cf. Mt 9:1-8).” (Van der Watt and du Toit)
“Jesus forgave sins (Mt 9:1-8; Mk 2:1-12; Lk 5:17-26; 7:36-50; cf. Jn 20:23), behavior that for a first-century Jew could be derived from an understanding of the responsibilities of the true high priest, as God's representative and real presence (Ex 28:28; Lev 10:17).” (Fletcher-Louis)
“Although by no means certain, the high priest typology of Hebrews (see Heb 4-7) may derive in part from certain priestly prerogatives that Jesus had assumed. The most significant of these were his declarations of the forgiveness of sins (Mk 2:5-10; Lk 7:48.” (Evans and Novakovic)
“Many of Jesus' sayings and actions no doubt were viewed as being critical of the temple. For instance, Jesus' extending forgiveness to the paralytic in Mark 2:5 (cf. Mt 9:2; Lk 5:20), especially if Jesus did such a thing on more than one occasion would have outraged the temple priests because Jesus would be offering forgiveness outside the temple and the sacrificial cult officiated by the authorities.” (Dennis)
Thus, the real reason for their anger at Jesus' words may not have been to defend God's honor but to defend their own personal positions in the official Jewish hierarchy.
Jesus' Counter-Argument
“Jesus' use of a counter-question in situations of debate recurs in other [Markan] narratives (3:4; 11:30; 12:37) and appears to be characteristic of his response to conflict...By use of a counter-question Jesus challenges their facile assumption that he has acted irresponsibly as a dispenser of cheap grace.” (Lane)
“The rhetorical question...implies that if the 'harder' of the two options can be demonstrated, the 'easier' may be assumed also to be possible. It might be suggested that to forgive sins is the harder, since only God can do it, but Jesus' question is not about which is easier to do, but which is easier to say, and a claim to forgive sins is undoubtedly easier to make, since it cannot be falsified by external events, whereas a claim to make a paralyzed man walk will be immediately proved true or false by a success or failure which everyone can see...This use of the comparative eukoperon, 'easier,' to express an a fortiori argument seems to be a distinctive usage of Jesus; it occurs in Greek only in the sayings of Jesus (cf. Matt 19:24 and parallels; Luke 16:17).” (France)
Aftermath
Of course, the result is that Jesus does heal the paralytic at the end. Not only that, but it is interesting that the crowd immediately recognizes the ultimate source of the healing, God Himself. And therefore they praise Him. Note that the crowd saw what the Jewish authorities were to blind to see or did not wish to see – Jesus was not at all blaspheming God, instead he was channeling God's power to both forgive and heal, and doing it without any of the temple trappings and personnel
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments