Chapter # 2 Paragraph # 1 Study # 7
July 9, 2019
Moss Bluff, Louisiana
(086)
1901 ASV
8 And straightway Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, saith unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts?
9 Which is easier, to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins are forgiven; or to say, Arise, and take up thy
bed, and walk?
10 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath authority on earth to forgive sins (he saith to the sick of the palsy),
11 I say unto thee, Arise, take up thy
bed, and go unto thy house.
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. Jesus' Recognition of Their Reasoning.
- A. The "straightway" is (according to Strong's) the eleventh time so far that Mark used this term. He apparently used it to pull his readers' attention to the significance of his declaration.
- B. Mark's declaration involved Jesus' "perceiving in His spirit".
- 1. The term translated "perceiving" is actually an Aorist, indicating an action already accomplished, not on-going as the translation suggests.
- a. The word itself is an intensified form of "knowing by way of actual interaction", not simply "omniscience" in action, nor a matter of "reasoning" by using logic.
- b. This word is only used by Mark in four texts: two of which focus upon Jesus having the capacity to "know" from within Himself (2:8 and 5:30); and two of which focus upon the "people" in their reaction to "knowing" Him (6:33 and 6:54). The basic root is used in 13 texts of Mark without the prefix intensifier.
- 2. The phrase translated "in His spirit" is "to pneumati autou"; it has no definitive "in" and is in the "dative" case which is significantly open in terms of possible translations.
- a. The possibilities.
- 1) Mark could have been identifying the "location" of Jesus' "knowledge".
- 2) He could have been identifying an "association" of Jesus' "knowledge".
- 3) Or, he could have been identifying a "means by which" Jesus "knew".
- b. The probability.
- 1) Mark's use of "spirit" is heavily focused upon "persons who are 'spirit' in essence", either God's "Holy Spirit" or some of the people's "spirits" as "unclean" and "demonic".
- 2) This focus is typically upon some "action" that was sponsored by a "spirit".
- 3) The significance seems to be that Jesus came into His "interactional knowledge" by means of an inner spirit.
- a) This raises the question as to which "inner spirit". He had received a "spirit" at the point of His "incarnation" so that He was "human" as defined by Paul in 1 Thessalonians 5:23 (body, soul, and spirit). But, at His baptism He had received another "Spirit" Who had descended upon Him from heaven, and Who had "driven" Him into the wilderness to be confronted by Satan.
- b) So, did Jesus "perceive" the inner workings of the "hearts" of the scribes by means of His inner human spirit, or was it that Spirit from heaven, Who "drove" His actions, the One Who gave Him an "interaction with the thoughts of those scribes" so that He "knew" what they were "reasoning"?
- c) In other words, is Mark pointing out the fact that the inner human spirit of Jesus had the capacity to create for Him an interaction with the heart-reasonings of the scribes, or was that interaction generated by the Spirit of God from heaven so that, at the point of that "generation", He was moved to, in this case, "speech" as a matter of doctrinal confrontation (lego)?
- 4) It is my opinion, based upon Jesus' declaration in John 5:19-29 that He could "do nothing of Himself but ... the Son doeth [as] the Father showeth Him...", that Jesus "knew by means of the Spirit" [that had descended upon Him from heaven at His baptism by John (actually called "the Spirit of Jesus" in Philippians 1:19 and as the "bottom line" of the identity of a human being as a child of God He is called "the Spirit of Christ"; Romans 8:9)] what the reasonings of the scribes were.
- C. Mark's explanation of what Jesus had been given by the Spirit.
- 1. His "interactional knowledge" was that the scribes were "thusly reasoning within themselves".
- 2. The "within themselves" is declared by Jesus to be "in your hearts" (2:8) and had already been declared by Mark to be "in their hearts" (2:6).
- a. This is a crucial description of the "whence" (the location of the source, and the identification of the realm) of their reasoning because it is the crucial sponsor of their "values", structured from the top down (from most important to barely important).
- b. Thus, it is critical for us to realize that the scribes where interacting with Jesus' words to the paralytic as it bounced off of their own primary "lust" (highest value). This means that they were not looking for "truth" but for "whether, or not, His words would further their own lust for status". His words were found wanting in this case because He had, by "forgiving" the paralytic, removed them from the issues of "true status" [He is the Son of God (Mark 1:11) and they are mere creatures (there are no coattails of "glory" for them in this "removal")]; so they decided to accuse Him of blasphemy.
- 3. The actual "reasoning" included their conclusion that He was blaspheming because He was claiming an ability that uniquely rests in the realm of divine abilities (only God can actually "lift" the legitimate claims of "Justice" off of the shoulders of those who have sinned).
- II. Jesus' Challenge to Them.
- A. First, answer this question: "Why are you reasoning these things in your hearts?" It would do them a great deal of good to ask themselves this question because it points to "the motives that exist in the heart".
- B. Second, answer this question: "Which is comparatively easy: to say to the paralytic 'your sins are being forgiven', or to say 'Arise and take up your bed and walk?'"
- 1. The meaning here is not "obvious".
- a. On the one hand, there is the issue of "comparative ease of speech" and whether, or not, the thing said is demonstrably effective: "easy to say" as a "truth" to be received.
- 1) To say "your sins are being forgiven" is impossible to show as demonstrably effective as no one can demonstrate God's response to "sins"; His response is His own and it is not visible in our realm. And it is highly likely to not "be received" by at least some of the hearers. It is far easier to pronounce a "reality" that cannot be denied, or invalidated, so that if a man is told to do something that will easily show whether, or not, the power has been given to him to do it, validity is easy to establish.
- 2) To say "arise and take up your bed and walk" is easily demonstrable and not "rejected": he either gets up and takes up his bed and walks away (and the "saying" is received), or he does not (and the "saying", as well as the speaker, is not received).
- b. On the other hand, given the culture and theology in Israel at this time in history, it is far "easier" to perform a physical healing without the complications of "theology" than it is to stir up the hornets' nest of profound "theological" conflict. But, remember, Jesus "did" what He did (cast out demons and heal diseases) to lend "authority" to what He "said".
- c. Thus, the answer is, "It is easier to say, 'Take up your bed and walk' than it is to say "Your sins are being forgiven you".
- 2. Jesus does have the upper hand here as He has already been going all throughout Galilee and healing and casting out demons. Thus, to say, "Arise, take up your bed and walk" would be relatively easy to both "say" and "validate". But, Jesus did not come to do the "easy" thing; He came to do the "necessary" thing.
- a. Jesus is far more interested in confronting "the reasonings of the heart" than He is in confronting the physical distresses of men. This is the testimony of the Old Testament book of Job.
- b. The experience of "Life" is not at all enhanced or compromised by the physical issues; but it is significantly tied to "the reasonings of the heart".
- III. Jesus' Demonstration of His Ability "To Forgive Sins on Earth".
- A. At the core, the "forgiveness of sins" is the issue.
- 1. It is the issue because of its essential nature: the suspension of "Justice" and "Law" for the sake of the expression of "Grace" and "Mercy". This is entirely in God as an issue of how the glory of God is in harmony with itself.
- 2. It is the issue because of its necessity in the establishment of the Larger Plan of God to establish an eternal kingdom of actual righteousness, peace, and joy.
- 3. It is the issue because of the presence of extreme human depravity: no offspring of the man, Adam, does not sin so that no "relational universe" is even possible without some real solution.
- B. The critical issue in this context is Jesus' declaration of His prerogative: He claims that He has "authority" as "the Son of the Man" to dismiss the impact that "sins" have under "Justice" as the absence of "Grace and Mercy" and that this authority is His "on the earth".
- 1. This is an enormous claim because it consists of the content of His identity as the Arbiter of the "conflicts" between "attributes" in God Himself. This claim is that He can put "Justice" and "Grace" into perfect harmony.
- a. Involved in this concept is Jesus' Self-identification as "The Son of The Man".
- 1) According to Strong's Concordance, the title, The Son of The man, is applied to Jesus in 13 texts by Mark.
- a) This title is highly likely to have come directly out of Daniel 7:13-14 where the Ancient of Days presents an eternal kingdom to Him as the One Who Mark says declared that this "kingdom" was "at hand" (Mark 1:15).
- b) As a title, it is in contrast to Mark's general introduction of Jesus in his record of the baptism at which time the Father identified Jesus as "My Beloved Son" and it is in contrast to both the testimony of the demons "who knew Who He was" (1:24 and 34) that He was "the Son of God" (3:11) and "Son of the Most High God" (5:7) and the testimony of the centurion that "this man was the Son of God" (15:39).
- c) But, it was as "the Son of the Man" and "the Son of the God" that Jesus was the solution to the "inner glory of God" issue of how "Justice" and "Grace" co-abide in perfect harmony. He made it comprehensible to us how, as Paul declared it, God is both just and Justifier (Romans 3:26). He is both "righteous" and One Who "declares a man righteous" ("...him which believeth in Jesus").
- 2) It is as "The Son of the Man" that Jesus exercises the "authority" on earth to forgive sins. In John's Gospel Jesus is presented as an "authority" because He is "The Son of the Man" (John 5:27).
- a) Because Jesus was operating within the historical context of the sixty-ninth week prophesied by Daniel, He could easily declare that the "Kingdom" was "at hand" both in the Person of The Son of Man as well as the expected coming of that Kingdom after the seventieth week was fulfilled.
- b) The issue, as mentioned above, is that there can be no such Kingdom if there is no "forgiveness of sins", and there can be no "forgiveness of sins" unless there is a Son of Man to provide for the satisfaction of the Justice of God.
- 2. But, as a sub-thesis, Jesus' claim, that He can establish this identity for those in attendance so that they "know" that He has this identity, is crucial.
- a. Three times in John's Gospel Jesus is recorded as saying, "If (with a conditional clause)... then they would not have sin..." (9:41, 15:22; and 15:24). "If" they could not "see"; "If" they could not hear; and "If" Jesus had not done among them "the works which none other man did", He said "they had not had sin" (not as an actual fact, but as a mitigating fact that would have mitigated the penalties of their sins). But, He said, "...they have both seen and hated both Me and My Father".
- b. What Jesus did in the face of the accusation of blasphemy was beyond the level of what was necessary for them to "know" the legitimacy of His claim.
- 1) In the first place, they did not have the ability/authority to make the determination that His claim was false.
- a) They did not have access to the inner workings of the glory of God so that they (as those who set up the doctrine of the synagogues) could confidently affirm that He was blaspheming. They were heavily prejudiced against the notion that a "man" could not be a witness to those inner workings, but, obviously, they did not think that prejudice should be used against them.
- i. If He, as a mere man, could not have the necessary access to the inner workings of the glory of God so as to be able to declare whose sins are being forgiven, how is it that they, as mere men, could have such access so that they could declare His claim to be blasphemy? Their accusation of blasphemy by Him brought them into condemnation for the very thing of which they accused Him.
- ii. And, if they argued that their "authority" to pronounce Him to be "blaspheming" arose from ancient "words" validated by ancient "works", how do they escape the present "words" validated by present "works"?
- b) They were in the untenable position of declaring that Jesus could not possibly have the authority He claimed by claiming the very same position they called blasphemy.
- 2) In the second place, He turned to the paralytic and "did" a "work that none other man did" (John 15:24) as a valid argument that He had "authority" to both "act" and "speak", at a minimum, "for" God and, at a maximum "as" God.
- a) If He was acting/speaking "for" God, His claim was that He was being a witness to God's "forgiving" the man of his sins (a witness of divine inner workings).
- b) If He was acting/speaking "as" God, He had no need to be a "witness" as He was the One actually "doing" the "forgiving".
