Chapter # 2 Paragraph # 1 Study # 8
July 16, 2019
Moss Bluff, Louisiana
(088)
1901 ASV
12 And he arose, and straightway took up the
bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.
- I. The Reaction of the Observers.
- A. What they observed.
- 1. Jesus put His ability to forgive sins on the line with His instruction to the paralytic to be completely healed.
- a. He clearly placed "their" knowledge that He had authority on earth to forgive sins directly upon whether, or not, the paralytic would be sufficiently "healed" as to be able to get up, pick up, and depart.
- 1) The issue is not whether they would admit that His action "proved" His "authority"; it is the fact that His "authority" was sufficiently demonstrated that any objections they wanted to put forward were overruled as far as God is concerned. It does not matter whether "they" will recognize and acknowledge the truthfulness of His "presentation" and its impact; what matters is that God will hold them accountable and they will be brought to silence and true guiltiness.
- a) This issue is complicated by two major problems.
- i. The Mosaic insistence upon doctrinal accuracy over "demonstration" in Deuteronomy 13:3 with Stephen's accusation hovering in the background (Acts 7:42-43): the "appearance" was of true worship with all of its details, but the reality was of false worship.
- ii. The "false prophet" with his "Elijah" capacity in the face of a "resurrected" false Christ (Revelation 13:13-14).
- b) But Christ's "foundation" rests upon the stark contrast between His "character" and that of all others: He voluntarily gave Himself up to death for men, but all others require men to die for them (John 10:10-21).
- 2) There is the larger fact of Jesus' multiple declarations that "truth" is only openly acknowledged as "truth" by a certain type of person (John 6:36-37 and a large section of chapter 10 are samples of this reality).
- b. In terms of the "greatness" of the event, there were "greater" demonstrations of authority already presented by Mark (i.e., the healing of a leper).
- 1) It was the presence of the scribes that was the "trigger" for this demonstration: there were, no doubt, many "testimonies" which the scribes had heard (why else were they sitting in that house?), but Mark does not record that they were direct witnesses until this paragraph.
- 2) This was, by Mark's account, a direct challenge by Jesus to the "scribal doctrines of the synagogue" and it was Mark's first presentation of this issue being starkly "set up" so that people had to deal with the contrast in doctrine.
- a) The people had already recognized that Jesus' "teaching" carried a sense of His "authority" that the scribes did not have.
- b) The exposure of the scribes to Jesus' "authority" has not been presented by Mark until this point. Jesus was in Galilee; the typical place of residence for many of the scribes was Jerusalem. It is perfectly possible that all of their exposure to Him was second-hand as in Jesus' instruction to the leper to go to the temple with the required sacrifice for cleansing from leprosy. Possible, or not, this is clearly Mark's first presentation of a head-to-head with the scribes. This is post-Nicodemus (John 3:24 compared with Mark 1:14) and his admission to Jesus that "we know You are from God" stands without regard for whether the admission is verbal, or only internal.
- c) Additionally, the point of John 15:24 also stands whether Jesus ever actually stated it or not (He did; this is not a question of the integrity of the text). It is a principle of Truth and of how God deals with "sins". The claim of the people that they had never seen anything like what He did indicates that He had "done among them the works (a work) which none other man did".
- 2. The paralytic "straightway" arose, took up his pallet, and departed before them all.
- a. Mark's "straightway" typically means, "give this some careful thought", but it is not in the text of the Nestle/Aland 26.
- b. What is, after all, the impact of the paralytic's new ability?
- 1) The present tense in the imperative signals Jesus' intent that the paralytic demonstrate his presently possessed ability to physically function as a whole person, but the passive voice (see "c." below) suggests a bit of hesitation on his part.
- 2) His current condition is not fragile; he can bend over and pick up his pallet without any "hitch" as a possible hold-over of long-term paralysis.
- 3) He is to walk away from "this" house and go to "his own". There actually may be a subtle indication that he was not to continue in any allegiance to the synagogue from here on out. Peter's house was painted in this account as a place "like unto a synagogue" by Mark's verb in 2:2 (translated "gathered together"). If the doctrine of the synagogue is retained in spite of Jesus' "authority", the former paralytic should use his newly given capacities to support Jesus and shy away from the synagogue: go to your own house.
- c. In an interesting twist, Mark's record says that "he was raised", not, as the Authorized Version and ASV and the NASB all translate it, "he arose". In Matthew's record, as in Mark's, the verb is in the passive voice; in Luke's record the verb is altogether a different verb and is in the active voice as an attending participle to the main verb. John, of course, has no record of this event in his Gospel.
- 1) The picture is like unto that of Mark 1:31 in which Jesus "raised" (active voice) Peter's mother-in-law by taking her hand and, probably, pulling her into an upright posture.
- 2) Mark's switch to the passive voice indicates, or suggests, that the man "was raised", most likely by Jesus taking his hand. Acts 3:7 is a direct illustration of this event as Peter took the lame man by the hand and pulled him into an upright, standing, position.
- a) This may suggest that the man was caught completely off-guard and did not respond as quickly as Jesus wished him to, so Jesus took his hand and helped him up.
- b) In any case, by word, he was healed, and by touch he was moved into the use of his newly given wholeness.
- B. How they reacted.
- 1. They were "amazed". This word, also used by Mark in 3:21 in a very telling way, and in 5:42 and in 6:51. It means that they were so mentally stunned that they seemed incapable of rational thought. We have the relatively new statement in our language, "...it blew my mind...", as a kind of almost direct corollary. The people, frankly, did not know what to think.
- 2. But, they "glorified" God. This signals a shift of "T"heology, which was Jesus' direct purpose.
- a. This is significant because of the Third Commandment (Exodus 20:7). Any ascription to God of anything that He did not do is "applying His name to vanity", and that brings a strong penalty.
- b. This is a signal of the growing dominance of "Grace" over "Law" as the people were beginning to "see" God in a different light.
- 3. They "said" (lego): "We have never seen [it] in this manner". The "work" Jesus performed was an irrefutable/unarguable evidence of His "authority on earth" and anything other than a "yielding of faith" was a sham to be revealed at least in the last day.
