Nowadays, we take it for granted that Yeshua/Jesus can forgive sins but in this first of the five controversy dialogues of Mark 2/3, it is nothing short of revolutionary and potentially blasphemous to make that claim. So, what’s the big deal? This week, we will be looking at the belief, as expressed in the Talmud, that a sick man would not recover unless his sins were forgiven by God first. Up to this point, Yeshua’s battles have all been against the demonic and sickness–but now He faces an entirely different kind of opposition–humans.
Transcript below
*******************
Mark 10—Your Sins are Forgiven—The First Controversy Dialogue
2 And when he returned to Capernaum after some days, it was reported that he was at home. 2 And many were gathered together, so that there was no more room, not even at the door. And he was preaching the word to them. 3 And they came, bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men. 4 And when they could not get near him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him, and when they had made an opening, they let down the bed on which the paralytic lay. 5 And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” 6 Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, 7 “Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” 8 And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, “Why do you question these things in your hearts? 9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise, take up your bed and walk’? 10 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he said to the paralytic—11 “I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go home.” 12 And he rose and immediately picked up his bed and went out before them all, so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, “We never saw anything like this!”
The next five weeks are going to be a lot different than the first nine weeks. Yes, it took us nine weeks just to get through Chapter one BUT that’s because we had to lay down some foundational material about the Gospel and the Second Exodus, the title Son of Man and the Yahweh Warrior motif so that you guys would really have a good bead on the different themes running through Mark’s Gospel. Four of those nine weeks directly related to the early ministry of Yeshua/Jesus in Capernaum and the surrounding areas, how He did battle with the demonic forces of evil and sickness and the problems it caused as He grew in renown and wasn’t able to preach—everyone wanted to be healed instead! Then we spent a week learning about fishing on the Sea of Galilee thanks to the wonderful scholarship of a man who actually lived that life before the advent of modern fishing nets and boats, and another learning about John the Baptist. But from now on, it’s all about the Messiah for the next five weeks—well, all about the Messiah and his growing controversies with the Pharisees and Scribes.
In fact, these next five weeks, covering all of Chapter two and the first six verses of Chapter three, are called the “five controversy dialogues” by scholars and for good reason. Mark likes to lump things together thematically and not chronologically and, by that, I mean by subject instead of as things actually happened in real life. And as we go through these, you will see why the chronological reordering of the Gospels was considered heretical by some early church Fathers, because it obscured what the writers were striving to teach about Yeshua. We modern people love for things to be told in order, but that is very new and not how it was done in ancient times. They were interested in telling more of a cohesive story that stressed the fulfillment of Scripture, not with giving a minute by minute account. It’s really very much better as is, and if it were better another way then it would have been written another way.
Hi, I am Tyler Dawn Rosenquist and welcome to Character in Context, where I teach the historical and ancient sociological context of Scripture with an eye to developing the character of the Messiah. If you prefer written material, I have five years’ worth of blog at theancientbridge.com as well as my six books available on amazon—including a four-volume curriculum series dedicated to teaching Scriptural context in a way that even kids can understand it, called Context for Kids—and I have two video channels on YouTube with free Bible teachings for both adults and kids. You can find the link for those on my website. Past broadcasts of this program can be found at characterincontext.podbean.com and transcripts can be had for most broadcasts at theancientbridge.com
All Scripture this week comes courtesy of the ESV, the English Standard Version but you can follow along with whatever Bible you want. I’m not fussy about it. The growing reference book list that I am using for this series can be found on my blog in the transcript for the second Mark teaching. Boy howdy, the one I picked up and read for next week’s episode is a doozy!
Now, this first controversy is going to be very subtle compared to the ones to come, and, in fact, the animosity is going to ramp up considerably every week. I want to just remind you that we aren’t to think that these things happened one after another—in fact, they represent events that must have happened at different times as He grew more and more well-known and came more and more under the scrutiny of local authorities.
2 And when he returned to Capernaum after some days, it was reported that he was at home.
And when He returned—well, where was He? When we saw Yeshua and the four fishermen last, Yeshua had just healed the leper who had blabbed about Him to everyone who would listen—resulting in Yeshua not being able to enter into towns anymore because people were swamping Him with demands for miracles. So, might as well return to Capernaum, right? I mean, He had to leave there after healing Peter’s mother in law and delivering the demon-oppressed man and all the excitement that caused, so, since it was the same everywhere now, might as well go somewhere where they actually had beds and food waiting for them. Remember, at this point, He is still wildly popular with everyone. Everyone is amazed by His teachings and His miracles. There hasn’t been a breath of opposition from any corner. Not even a hint of trouble brewing. I want you to hear this because it is vitally important. In chapter one, and this is why it is divided up the way it is, all of Yeshua’s opposition comes from demons and sickness. None of it is from people. And He defeats that foe without any issue. In Chapter two, everything changes, and His opponents are humans.
Alright, back to the text, so then they return, and the word gets out that He’s at Peter’s mother in law’s place again. A town of 1500 people might not seem like a lot unless they are crowded together at your door. I imagine they had been on the lookout for His return. It wasn’t like they had a TV or radio. This was the biggest thing that had ever happened in their lives. You’d expect someone like Yeshua to show up in Jerusalem, but Capernaum? No way!
2 And many were gathered together, so that there was no more room, not even at the door. And he was preaching the word to them.
And how many? Many—remember the Hebrew word rabbim in Isaiah 52, and 53 and all the references of the things that Yahweh would do for the many through the Servant. Many were appalled by Him (52:14), He will sprinkle many nations (52:15), He will justify many (53:11) and He will bear the sins of many (53:12). And here we have many gathered together at the door. No mistake here. This greek word, polys, is the exact same word that the translators used for all those verses when they created the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures hundreds of years before Yeshua.
3 And they came, bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men. 4 And when they could not get near him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him, and when they had made an opening, they let down the bed on which the paralytic lay.
Now, what are we looking at here? How would this house be set up? In the Zondervan Illustrated Bible Background Commentary, on pg 218 of Volume one, they have a good description of how this house would have been constructed and set up. “Houses in Capernaum did not have large windows. Walls were built without true foundations and were made of rough basalt without mortar. The courses were leveled with small pebbles and soil. Such buildings could support little more than a thatch roof. The sloping flat roof consisted of wooden cross beams (usually made from trees, Isa. 9:10) overlaid with a matting of reeds, palm branches, and dried mud (see Ps. 129:6). The roof could be reached from open courtyards by a flight of stone steps or by a ladder. One could then dig into the earthen roof without causing irreparable damage. This explains why the men could dig through the roof without evoking howls of protest from the owner. The roof had to be replenished and rolled every fall before the onset of the winter rains.[1]”
Now, there is debate as to whether this is Peter’s mother in law’s house or if Yeshua had a house, but if this was His house then we have to wonder how He came by it and why He said that He had nowhere to lay His head in Matthew and Luke. I am not saying this wasn’t His house, I just don’t think it was and if it wasn’t, then these four dudes just opened up a hole in the roof of a Jewish mother’s house. Now, I am not Jewish, nor am I a mother in law or a widow, but if that was my roof, they would all be paralyzed in rather short order. You have to have a lot of faith to open up a hole in a widow’s roof, and a lot of gall. They must have been pretty desperate and must have really loved their friend to not simply wait until the crowds cleared at some point. It is obvious that they didn’t want to risk not getting him restored.
We might even think to ourselves, “why wouldn’t the crowd let them through?” Well, we live in an age where the disabled are treated with a lot of dignity and even preference in a lot of cases, as I say this as the mom of a special needs child. When I was in school, it wasn’t like that—at all. There was no peer pressure enforced protection of the disabled. It was brutal. People saw someone who was crippled and really had very little or no pity and might even react with contempt as though the person had been divinely afflicted, which was often the assumption. Honor and shame societies aren’t exactly known for being egalitarian and merciful. I certainly wouldn’t recommend living in one unless you are wealthy, athletic, and beautiful. Think of never leaving High School. Personally, that would have been hell for me. So, no, there was no pity and no mercy shown to this poor soul—except by his friends who moved heaven and earth and a widow’s roof to get him to Yeshua. These aren’t modern people; these were desperate people living in desperate times who were amazingly loyal friends who were willing to leave nothing to chance. They knew Yeshua could do it—they wouldn’t have damaged her roof otherwise—if only they could get through. Desperate times call for desperate measures, I guess.
5 And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”
I imagine Yeshua’s shock as this drama unfolded over his head. First, you hear the stirring upstairs and then the scraping. By now everyone was looking up and murmuring. Then they see the men, and they had to keep going until they made a hole big enough to lower him through—no small hole!
Now, the bed he was on, I forgot to mention, that is a Latin loan word krabbaton describing the bedroll of a soldier or a poor man’s bed. And Yeshua must have looked at this man and wondered at the kind of loyalty that he had inspired in his friends. And his friends, in turn, had so much trust that Yeshua could do this impossible thing. And Yeshua says something that sounds odd to us, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” And we’re like, “What the heck? What sins? What did this guy do?” And it doesn’t say—it’s totally generic, perhaps the kind of forgiveness that we are all in need of. Or, perhaps this was to provoke a response because we have this cool little tidbit in Nedarim 41a in the Babylonian Talmud and if you are ever wondering what all these numbers mean, it means that this is the commentary on Nedarim 4.1 of the Mishnah, which is the generic basic law code finally codified around 200 CE by the Jewish scholars living in Babylon in the Parthian Empire as opposed to the Jerusalem Talmud which was not composed in Israel but was simply named after Jerusalem and composed by Jewish scholars who lived in the West after their expulsion in the second century.
Anyway, here is the quote: “A sick man does not recover from his sickness until all his sins are forgiven him, as it is written, Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases.” And although we cannot be certain that a lot of the Gamara, the commentary section of the Talmud where this opinion comes from, applies to Yeshua’s time and much of It obviously doesn’t because it was compiled 600 years later after the destruction of the Temple and by people who were living very different lives—this opinion is rather too applicable to our situation here to ignore. And it is very in keeping with what we know of the times that these people really didn’t believe that bad stuff “just happened” to the good and the bad but was the result of sin and curses. Righteous people just weren’t afflicted, right Job? But seriously, it’s no different than prosperity Gospel believers today who ignore Job, and David’s years of being hunted, and Paul’s sicknesses as well as Timothy’s. If someone deserves their tribulation then we are let off the hook for needing to help them. Right? No, I don’t think so either. So they have this belief that a sick man cannot rise from his bed until he is forgiven—well, only God can forgive sins, right? That’s their belief. And this guy just flat out claimed to know that this man’s sins are forgiven. He’s literally speaking for God! Who does He think He is?
6 Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts,
The Scribes were actually sitting. That’s interesting. That means they were allowed in and given places of honor in the house. But it doesn’t say that they were scribes of the Pharisees like we see elsewhere. Were they scribes of the Sadducees? That would actually make them high ranking retainers with some actual authority. But they are sitting there, in silence, at this point they are only questioning in their hearts. That makes this confrontation the mildest of the five controversies because they aren’t actually speaking against Him.
7 “Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”
And this is their silent judgment as they sit there. It makes me think of Psalm one—blessed it the man who does not sit in the seat of scoffers. Well, here they are. Yeshua has made a legal claim—that this man’s sins are forgiven and the Scribes are rejecting that claim. They are calling Him a blasphemer in their hearts for speaking on behalf of God but at this point, there is no way to make a charge of blasphemy stick. In fact, if you ever read Mishnah Tractate Sanhedrin, and get a good commentary because reading it without commentary just is too confusing and you will not understand what you are reading—no one can. It was written by legal experts who knew the law and it was just giving themselves very brief case-law notes on different rulings. It was only 400 years later that they added the much-needed commentary. But Tractate Sanhedrin tells us how incredibly difficult it was to make a blasphemy charge stick—or an idolatry charge for that matter. Many witnesses and many warnings were needed! Now, this is the first blasphemy charge in the Gospel of Mark but it won’t be the last. If they can prove blasphemy, the punishment is stoning but the Romans had removed their permission to carry out any death penalties—hence, the chief priests having to resort to going through Pontius Pilate to have Him crucified.
8 And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, “Why do you question these things in your hearts?
Now, this is the first mention of Yeshua knowing the secrets of people’s hearts. And although I have run into a lot of people on the internet who think they have this ability, I sure haven’t found one yet who actually does. So, what is He saying here? Why are they questioning in the first place or why aren’t they saying what they are thinking?
Remember we are dealing with legal challenges here. Blasphemy is not an insult, it is a legal charge of slandering God in some way and the penalty was death by stoning. It is the most serious crime in Scripture, alongside the sin of encroachment (which Uzzah committed when he touched the Ark to stabilize it and King Uzziah when he offered incense in the Holy Place which was forbidden to all but the priests). This isn’t just some flippant remark, they are accusing Yeshua, in their thoughts, of a serious crime but for some reason, they aren’t willing to speak the charge out loud. Is it because it is so hard to prove? Or are they intimidated by the crowds who consider Him to be a prophet? Are they waiting for enough evidence before they accuse Him? That would be the smart thing to do if they are the Scribes of the Sadducean chief priests come to investigate what on earth is going on in Galilee. But Yeshua isn’t going to just allow them to have the luxury of seeming to be silent and impartial, He is going to offer them another challenge in the form of a question.
9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise, take up your bed and walk’?
Obviously, it is easier to tell him his sins are forgiven because no one can prove that they aren’t forgiven, right? Oh, that’s right—unless we take into account that pesky little belief that a person cannot rise up from his sickbed unless his sins are forgiven. Because that right there would amount to proof positive that he wasn’t forgiven in this honor/shame audience that has swamped the house. Then they could use their traditional beliefs to discredit His claims of being able to forgive. “Has this man, this obvious sinner, risen up from his bed? No? Obviously this man is a blasphemer!” So, the first is easy to say but not so easy to prove. But His challenge alludes to the proof He will be providing. And there is nothing easy about saying, ‘Rise, take up your bed and walk.’ Oh, my heck, no. I have laid hands on people so many times and have spoken words of healing and sometimes it works but usually, it doesn’t because I am not the one doing the healing. You have to say the words out of hope and trust—trusting that God knows best and is compassionate and hope because I know He hears me and might grant my request. But easy to say? No siree. But Yeshua doesn’t have that problem because no word of His ever falls to the ground like mine do. Still, the proof is in the pudding and they don’t know who He is. It is an apt question, “What’s easier, to say something that can’t be disproven or to say something that either will or will not happen at this very moment?” I’d be sweating bullets if I tried to pull something like this–and for good reason.
10 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he said to the paralytic—11 “I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go home.”
This is a troublesome passage because scholars disagree on how Mark wrote this out. Remember that in Greek there are no breaks between words or punctuation. Mark actually seems to make a lot of parenthetical remarks that aren’t part of the conversation but are comments by Mark. The remarks are called parenthetical not because they want to describe it by a long word but because, in a modern book, the comment would be bracketed by parenthesis. Probably the most famous one of these is in Mark seven when we see “(thus He declared all foods clean)”. Another example is in Mark 13:14 when the writer remarked “(Let the reader understand)” and that one is not even remotely questionable because there is no way that Yeshua is addressing the reader of Mark’s Gospel when He is telling His disciples about the coming abomination of desolation. I mean, those guys were confused enough without their Master doing something like that, right?
Let’s look at this statement, which the ESV records as coming from the mouth of Yeshua and then I will tell you why I think Mark is saying it:
“But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”
If Yeshua said that, then it is odd because He usually only uses third-person titles for Himself when only His disciples are around. It is rare to see it otherwise and this is the first occurrence we see of this in Mark (even though I covered it in the second teaching of this series). I believe that this is Mark addressing the reader here and that the words did not come from Yeshua’s mouth. I believe this is a narrator’s remark. I also believe that we see the same thing in Mark 2:28. I don’t believe that Yeshua is revealing Himself to the Scribes here first. But, as I said, it is debated and a lot of people have great arguments so I really don’t know for sure. I wasn’t there. BUT, if it is a remark inserted by Mark, then the rest reads like this:
9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise, take up your bed and walk’? ”—he said to the paralytic—11 “I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go home.”
It’s much more conversational and dramatic this way, with the assurance of His ability to forgive sins being an addition for the benefit of those who were reading and listening to this being read. In our time, we completely take for granted the authority of Yeshua to forgive sins, but it was shocking two thousand years ago. Unthinkable, even. It was to that audience that the Gospel was written and not to ours where we have grown all too casual and comfortable with the idea that Yeshua has been given all authority in Heaven and on Earth. Our culture is saturated with this idea, and theirs was not.
So, anyway, this was like a mic drop. “Okay guys, you tell me—what’s easier to say, that’s he’s forgiven or to tell him to get up and go home? Let’s see. Get up and go home!”
And the man does just that. BOOOM. And hearkening back to a few weeks ago with Peter’s mother in law and her fever, when Yeshua says “rise up” it’s the same word as him lifting up his feverish hostess—egeiro—which is resurrection language! It’s going to be a recurring theme you might as well memorize the word. Along with polys and rabbim, both meaning many, in Greek and Hebrew respectively with their ties back to the suffering servant song of Isaiah 52 and 53. Oh, and eremos, the word meaning wilderness that is added in for all those Exodus tie ins.
I am going to add very quickly here that this is the only time that Mark mentions that Yeshua has the authority to forgive sins. And that’s interesting but let’s go back to our courtroom controversy motif. Yeshua made a bold claim. The Scribes silently challenged the validity of that claim with the strongest possible accusation, again, in silence. Yeshua lodged a defense and then made a counter-challenge, which the Scribes again refused to answer, or maybe He gave them no time to do so. It isn’t clear. What He did next was to demonstrate His authority to say that this man is forgiven. What would happen? I imagine there was an audible gasp, after which you could hear a pin drop as all eyes turned away from Yeshua and focused on the man laying on his krabbaton on the floor.
12 And he rose and immediately picked up his bed and went out before them all, so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, “We never saw anything like this!”
And he rose, egeiro, immediately. He picked up his bedroll and walked out. He didn’t stick around to praise God even, as far as we know, he followed Yeshua’s orders to the “T”. What a contrast to the last story of the leper who, instead of obeying Yeshua’s request not to tell anyone, went and blabbed it all over. This guy—I wonder if he was once a soldier because he knows how to do what he was told.
And again, we have an amazed crowd. It says they were all amazed, which I absolutely believe and I should hope that they all glorified God (even those Scribes who were harboring the blasphemy charges in their hearts)—and I absolutely believe that everyone was saying that they had never seen anything like this before. What we don’t have here is any indication that, despite what they had heard, the Scribes were convinced He was cool and not blaspheming. These were the legal experts of the day. Yeshua had vindicated Himself and His claims before their very eyes. What was their response? We don’t know. With some of the other controversy accounts (there will be five of them), we see that his challengers remain hostile and even hostile enough to ally with folks they hated, on the sabbath, just to plot His death. But here we don’t know. Perhaps they went away convinced! Maybe they suspected he was in league with Beelzebul, a charge which we will see later. The text doesn’t tell us because it wasn’t important to Mark’s story. All that was important is that Yeshua was vindicated of blasphemy.
In fact, in all of the controversy accounts, we will see some variation of this theme—Yeshua comes in and teaches, heals, then He faces condemnation over something, and He is vindicated. It’s rather like a micro-Gospel within the Gospel.
But beyond all that, I want to talk about the vital importance of Yeshua having forgiven this man. And the importance of healing him. Mark Horne, in his excellent book The Victory According to Mark, made a really awesome observation that I want to share with you. Being forgiven is about being given a new life and a chance at restoration. It was fundamentally about being accepted and made whole in the faith community. It doesn’t mean the messes we have gotten into just get cleaned up but we have a new starting point from which to move forward–a real opportunity. When Yeshua forgave the man, He called him “son” and this is adoption language. Another theme we are going to see, along with forgiveness, is the extension of kinship invitation. The sick, the sinners, the outcasts are going to be offered a place at Yeshua’s table. When Yeshua called this man son and forgave him, it was more than just “It’s okay, I forgive you” but an invitation to be a part of the community. This was huge in the ancient world to call someone son or daughter—it wasn’t one of those things where sometimes today people use “son” not fondly but as an expression of “Boy, I am older than you so you’d better listen up and give me my due.” Kinship language marked covenantal bonds. As I said, it is an invitation and one to be taken very seriously. That’s why this paralyzed man got up and did exactly what he was told. He accepted the “son” designation and walked out through the crowd for everyone to see and marvel at.
But, what Mark Horne said is that without the healing, the claim of forgiveness would have been like a pardon without your sentence being commuted. Like, “Okay, the Governor has given you a pardon and declared you innocent but you still have to serve a life sentence or endure the death penalty”—or you know, whatever. Of course, this isn’t the norm with those who come to faith and are suffering. Sometimes very faithful and wonderful people continue to suffer despite being forgiven. Look at Joni Eareckson Tada, she’s been a quadriplegic since she was what, sixteen years old? She went through a lot of years struggling with anger and doubt, understandably, only to come out refined and an inspiration to the world because of her international ministry despite her physical conditions. Although we wish that everything was cut and dried and like this paralyzed man who was healed to the glory of God and the testimony of Yeshua, we just know that not everyone is. Some people’s fruit has to speak for them instead of a strong healthy body! Joni’s fruit has been speaking volumes for many decades now. We believe Joni is forgiven because of how she has changed over time and matured into a wonderful minister but when Yeshua was roaming around the Galilee making grandiose claims, his judges weren’t going to wait around and see anything of the sort. They needed proof and they needed it then. Yeshua needed vindication and He needed it right then.
Imagine, if you will, if Yeshua had never resurrected at all but we were all supposed to take it on faith that He had been wrongfully crucified and would be returning as King someday! I daresay none of us would be believers today. But He did, and so we do, and because of the changes in our own lives and in our own fruit over the years, we also believe accounts like this one of the paralytic forgiven and restored to health.
Next week, we will explore the second controversy—the calling of a tax collector and eating with sinners—and this time, the attack will be bolder. In fact, we will see the challenges becoming increasingly more hostile, open, and serious until the fifth controversy, where there is even a plot to kill Him.
[1] Arnold, C. E. (2002). Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Vol. 1, p. 218). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
