Some years ago, while a grad student in a clinical psychology program, one of the professors pulled me aside into his office. He was concerned about something.
He knew that I was a Christian pastor. He also knew that I was at the top of my class academically. Yet he said, 'you must be a terrible pastor. In fact, I think you will also be a horrible therapist.'
I was, of course, left completely speechless.
Without a smile offering any indication that he was being factitious, he went on to say, 'look, I want you to go home and take a bath in spaghetti and meatballs. Go.'
With that being said, he ushered me out of his office. I was stunned. I hadn't anticipated anything like that. I hadn't a clue what he was talking about. Defensively, I reframed it in my head, telling myself that he was simply a crazy old man who needed to get back on his meds.
I mentioned the incident to several of my friends who immediately smiled with a knowing glance at me. 'Come on. You know what he meant? Tell me!' They wouldn't, of course.
This professor, at each encounter over the next few weeks, would ask me - often in front of the whole class and sometimes in the midst of a completely unrelated topic he was speaking on - whether or not I had taken my 'bath' yet? I felt hounded, harassed, and humiliated. What was he up to? Why this public filleting of my soul?
Some weeks later while studying with a friend, she stopped in the middle of our discussion and changed the subject. 'Why can't you see what the professor is trying to tell you? It is so obvious. How can you be at the top of our class academically and be so blind to this?'
She truly was my friend, despite the edgy tone. She went on to say, 'what is your cultural, ethnic background? Isn't, as I recall, your father from a Protestant Irish/English background? Isn't your mother from an Italian Roman Catholic background? Why, then, do you pretend to be only like your father and diss entirely your mothers' side of the family? You are both. You need to integrate you spaghetti and meatballs culture into who you are, because that is really who you are, a blend of both. If you lie to yourself, you won't be very helpful to anyone else. Get it?'
Got it. I was 'out of balance'. At that point in life I viewed my Italian side of the family as huggy touchy slobbery and undisciplined. I viewed my fathers' side of the family as principled, disciplined, integrity oriented and intellectual. I don't know 'how' I had slipped into these designations over time, because, actually, there weren't accurate. Yet, it was obvious to those who knew me that I was 'out of touch' with my own realities.
How could I be a decent pastor/therapist if I couldn't even be comfortable in my own skin? How could I help others live honestly in their own realities if I couldn't even embrace my own? The most powerful tool in counseling others is in being authentic in the relationship. I had been a 'fake'. I needed engage my life with balance.
Jesus understood balance.
2:1 When He had come back to Capernaum several days afterward, it was heard that He was at home.
Jesus returned 'home' - actually, since this was more or less Peter's story, Jesus returned to Peter's home, which had become 'his' home. Nazareth had not proved to be 'home' any longer, since he had been rejected there.
This text could possibly be read, 'And entering again into Capernaum, after some days it was heard that He was at home.' The context insists that this is the better translation since in chapter 1:39 Mark wrote that upon leaving Capernaum Jesus 'went into the synagogues throughout all Galilee, preaching.." If that had truly been the case, he would have been gone for months. Also, it would suggest that Jesus had been able to return to Capernaum undetected for several days before the community realized he was back.
Assuming this interpretation is true, why did he return to Capernaum? Why incognito? Was Capernaum a 'safe' place for him to 'rest'? Did he intentionally escape notice to decompress from all that had occurred?
Also, had Jesus returned knowing that his absence had accomplished his purpose and prepared them for his presence? He had left Capernaum while the people were still looking for him (1:35-38), when he had become 'object' rather than 'subject'.
2:2 And many were gathered together, so that there was not longer room, not even near the door; and He was speaking the word to them.
Something was very different about those who came to Peter's house this time. In 1:21 we were told that he went to Capernaum to teach in their synagogue on the Sabbath, yet was interrupted by a demon-possessed man. After the Sabbath, 1:32,33, the whole city gathered at his door - the ill with various diseases and the demon-possessed. Jesus realized that people had become distracted by his miracles and thus they only viewed him as a miracle-dispenser. His compassion had created an obstacle to 'hearing' the gospel. So he left them. His absence created 'wonder', permitting him to return not merely as a miracle worker, but again as a great teacher.
In chapter 2 the people were back, but this time they were ready to listen to what he had to say.
Jesus had already stated his purpose, to preach the gospel of God (1:14, 38). Yet, no matter how valuable that message, unless people wanted to hear it and were ready and able to listen, it wouldn't be heard.
Jesus never allowed the immediate to obscure the eternal, though the immediate is certainly of concern to the eternal. His compassion and teaching were kept in balance. It was in harmony with his nature to be compassionate, yet when he was seen as merely a miracle vending machine, he left Capernaum. His good works had been separated from his teaching. His absence made them rethink his presence.
Success isn't being able to speak the truth, but being able to speak the truth to those who are ready to receive it - even if they don't necessarily apply it immediately. He initially began his work in Capernaum preaching the gospel of God. Yet, the physical needs of the people were so overwhelming that they could not appreciate his teaching. So he healed them. But then, his compassion overwhelmed their willingness to listen, so he ceased healing long enough so that they could again value his teaching.
In Mark 2 the people came back to Peter's house, but this time without their sick and demon-possessed. This time they came to listen. Jesus had a lot to say. He had a lot he was passionate about saying.
Why was this so important to Him?
Healing immediate needs offered only temporary relief from suffering. Life, though, is full of suffering - often, for many, from the beginning to end. The word he preached presented a larger picture of God that would offer them a framework for understanding life with all of its suffering. A more accurate world view would not only give them hope no matter what life tossed at them, but would also help them remain on the eternal path.
In other words, Jesus was giving them a personal insight into who the Father really was so that they could have confidence that God would be with them no matter what. God wasn't going to remove them from this life, nor prevent bad things from happening, nor even 'fix' bad things when they happened. God was going to suffer alongside them, offering wisdom for the moment and hope for the future.
There are really only two ways to move through life. We can live without God, imagining all kinds of erroneous reasons for why bad things happen to us even when we try to do good. Or, we can live with God, knowing that whatever happens, however short we fall from the ideal, that God loves us, speaks to us, and has an eternal, grace-founded plan for us.
2:3,4 And they came, bringing to Him a paralytic, carried by four men. Being unable to get to Him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above Him; and when they had dug an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic was lying.
Jesus was finally back in Capernaum doing what he was sent to do - to preach the gospel of God. What do you think that was? The 'good news about God' would have meant, at that point in time, that the kingdom of God has come (1:15). The Jews had waited for this, albeit imagining it differently than it was in reality. Yet the evidence for it, became a diversion from it. They wanted relief from suffering more than they wanted the kingdom.
The people of Capernaum crowded around Peter's home ready to listen to Jesus teach rather than to merely 'use' Jesus as a worker of miracles. Here was his opportunity to teach them about the kingdom.
Unfortunately, or so it may have seemed at first, as they had settled into hearing Jesus teach, someone again interrupted him with a need for healing. Deja vu? A replay of his first teaching experience in Capernaum (1:21,22)? Then a demon-possessed man, now a paralyzed man. Would Jesus ever get a chance to fulfill his real mission? Would the people of Capernaum ever hear the whole, uninterrupted story?
As a preacher, I have had a similar experience(s). In each sermon I carefully create the setting to support my main point. On several occasions, after painstakingly leading my congregation to the hopefully anticipated and crucial pièce de résistance, something happened that diverted attention away from what I was just about to say. The moment was lost. My salient point was missed.
Sometimes the power went out. Sometimes an intoxicated person wandered in from the street and into the sanctuary and asked for directions in the middle of my sermon. Sometimes a baby began crying loudly and incessantly. Sometimes a person raised their hand to ask a question about something I had said 15 minutes earlier.
Satan at work? I suspect not, since this type of thing actually seldom happens, which if Satan truly existed to distract people, he would do so repeatedly. Alternatively, of course, the infrequency of such interruptions could also suggest that I seldom had anything of importance to say that Satan needed to disrupt. :)
In our story at hand, Jesus didn't see these four men with the paralytic as an inappropriate and untimely interruption. They weren't a distraction, rather an illustration. Even though he had moved the crowd from over-valuing miracles to valuing the word, he welcomed this request for a miracle even as evidence of the word.
Compassion alone is not the entire purpose of God, yet it is integral to God's purpose. Sometimes, though, a 'good' thing can become a 'bad' thing if it is viewed as the 'only' thing. Jesus' purpose was to preach the gospel, so he absented himself for a time from those who only wanted his miracles - one 'good' thing out of context with the larger, eternally 'good' thing.
On the other hand, teaching about the kingdom is not the entire purpose of God either. Teaching is a 'good' thing yet it can also become a 'bad' thing if it becomes the 'only' thing. Even though teaching/preaching the gospel of God was his primarily 'thing', Jesus didn't allow it to entirely eliminate the compassionate 'thing'.
The seeds of failure are often found in our successes. We over do a 'good' thing until it is a 'bad' thing. Balance is essential. We can only find balance as we grow in our understanding of the larger purpose of God.
The paralytic was let down through a hole made in the roof of Peter's house! We can imagine the distraction. As Jesus taught about the kingdom of God, noise from above captured the attention of the people below. Debris from overhead began to fall upon those underneath. Voices from Peter's roof became louder than Jesus voice in Peter's living room. Light expected from the windows shrunk in proportion to light unexpected from the roof.
The four men lowered the paralytic down in front of Jesus. Did they wonder if Jesus would be angry at their presumption? Did they wonder if the rumors about Jesus were a mere false assumption? Would he be willing to help their friend? Or would he dismiss them and have them return later again?
I guess, from one perspective, all this could have been seen as impatience, arrogance, as well as unnecessary vandalism. The man was paralyzed, not facing imminent death. Why couldn't they have simply waited until Jesus finished speaking?
The four men were so focused on their one and only task, that nothing was allowed to get in their way - not even 'good' teaching, from the Good Shepherd.
Their action rather underscores the very thinking of Jesus. He hadn't permitted compassionate miracles to obscure his primary mission to preach the gospel. Similarly, these men didn't permit Jesus' primary mission to obscure their need for a compassionate miracle. As Jesus demonstrated a life of faith, so he identified the actions of these 4 men as an 'act of faith'.
But there was an unexpected twist to this story.
2:4 And Jesus seeing their faith said to the paralytic, 'son, your sins are forgiven.'
Huh? Sins forgiven? They hadn't come looking for forgiveness, had they? Weren't they really there for healing? Why was his immediate response 'forgiveness'? Had Jesus chosen to first address the sin issue to cleverly co-opt their need into his teaching? Or, had he discerned that the earnestness of these men was less about the man's paralysis and more about his depression over feeling rejected by God?
In Bible times, in fact in the Bible itself, sickness and sin were intimately related. It was assumed that sickness was due, in some regard, to something sinful the person had done. The greater the illness, the greater the assumed sin. Where there was sin, there needed to be a sin offering. If the person remained ill, then there was either more sin to be confessed or God had chosen not to forgive 'so great a sin'.
The word was out that Jesus healed all kinds of sickness with a touch. Clearly, through Jesus, God was in an indiscriminately forgiving mood. If a sickness was instantly healed by Jesus, then God had obviously forgiven that sick person as well. If Jesus healed this man, then automatically he would 'feel' forgiven by God.
Instead of healing the man, thus implying that the man was forgiven by God, Jesus first forgave the man. This meant that sin and sickness weren't necessary so intimately related after all. If this man could be forgiven for all his sins, yet remain paralyzed, the people could no longer assume guilt wherever sickness occurred.
That was a huge paradigm shift. Through this one illustration Jesus taught that life 'is what it is', yet God is present. Suffering doesn't necessarily mean punishment from God because of sin. This overthrew Deut 28 entirely - do good, get blessed; do evil, get cursed. Grace is extended to people despite their imperfections.
This was, of course, the gospel of God's kingdom that Jesus came to preach and to demonstrate.
2:6,7 But some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, 'why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming. Who can forgive sins, but God alone?'
This was an apt description. The scribes (and the Pharisees - Lk 5:17) were 'just sitting' there. This is what judgment oriented folks usually do. They merely sit as gatekeepers, protecting their pet interpretations of religion, yet never getting up and doing anything compassionate. On the other hand, they weren't 'just sitting' there at all. They were sitting there and judging.
I picture the scribes sitting inside Peter's house - in the front row, with the best seats - listening to Jesus teach, looking for anything that was contrary to the Law, maybe nodding in agreement at times and maybe revealing a quizzical expression when he said something that wasn't necessary wrong, but more enlightening than they had ever heard before. But then Jesus forgave the paralytic his sins. Oops!
These scribes were, of course, asking a good question. They were, paradoxically, correct - yet also wrong. They were ‘out of balance’. They rightly understood ‘what’ the Law taught, but they wrongly understood ‘how’ to use the Law. The Law was not designed to point back to itself as the ‘object’ of veneration. Rather, the purpose of the Law was to point forward to it’s true Subject - Jesus. The scribes held the Law out of balance. As a result, they missed it’s salient point.
The OT scriptures were quite clear on forgiveness - God alone can forgive sin. When we sin, it is against God. For a man like Jesus to forgive a person's sin is to claim to be God - which is blasphemous - unless he was indeed God in human flesh.
Jesus didn't say, 'I am authorized by God to tell you that He forgives you for your sins against Him.' Rather, Jesus said, 'your sins are forgiven' - without any other explanations, without caveat. That this was exactly what Jesus meant is confirmed by the statement made by the scribes and quoted in Mark's gospel. 'Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?' Clearly, in their context, the way Jesus spoke did not allow for an interpretation of delegated authority from God, but rather that he spoke as if he was God himself!
Should we be concerned as well? Was Jesus really God? Earlier, the demons seemed to know who he was (1:24, 34) - that he was much more than what anyone else imagined him to be. The disciples already believed he was the Messiah. Was he more than the Messiah of promise?
Additionally, Jesus forgave this man's sins not only apart from a sin offering, but also well before the cross. How could that be? Could any sins be forgiven without making an offering at the temple?
We, today, speak about all our sins - past, present, and future - having been completely forgiven at the cross. Yet, Jesus told this man, without any caveat, that his sins were forgiven even before the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross and without a sacrifice of a lamb or dove at the temple. What, then, was the basis of his forgiveness?
Rev 13:8 speaks of the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the earth. In other words, it seems, God has always been a God of grace. The cross isn't about God's need for blood before he can forgive us. Rather, the blood of the cross reminds us that God cared enough to be one with us - even in suffering and death. The blood of Christ shed on the cross is evidence of God's love, not his need.
When the scriptures tell us that without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness of sin, the emphasis is not on some divine need for blood appeasement, but on love that is compelled to give all to be with us - even if it led to death. Love is always willing to give all for another, not because it must by some eternal divine law, but because that is the very nature of true love. The kingdom of heaven was 'grace and truth' centered, rather than Law and the Prophets centered. The latter being proclaimed until the time of John the Baptist, the former ever since (Jn 1:14,17; Mt 11:13; Lk 16:16)
2:8 Immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit that they were reasoning that way within themselves, said to them, 'why are you reasoning about these things in your hearts?'
Could Jesus actually read minds?
I suppose, if he could heal a paralytic, a leper, and cast out demons, why not read minds? We could rewrite Jesus' question: 'which is easier, to work a miracle of healing or to work a miracle of reading another's thoughts?' On the other hand, he probably could have predicted how they would respond, knowing 'how' they thought rather than 'what' they thought. Their thoughts could have, again, been 'written' all over their faces.
These scribes and Pharisees had come from every village of Galilee, Judea and Jerusalem (Lk 5:17). They knew the Law. The penalty for blasphemy was death by stoning (Lev. 24:16). Jesus was guilty of this charge unless He was deity - which, at the time, not even his disciples imagined.
Jesus wasn't exactly being subtle. I imagine that his disciples, maybe even Peter, acting as do many spokesmen for politicians today, stood up to 'explain' what Jesus ' really' meant to say, sensing the seeming faux pas. Or, at least, they rephrased it in their own heads to 'sanitize' it into a non-stoneable offense.
If the scribes were feeling religiously generous that day, they could have just said, 'Whatever. Words are easy to 'say'. Such words are difficult to 'accept' as legit. To have said such a thing simply proved that Jesus was a bit loopy, another piece of evidence that he was just another religious fruitcake.
As if Jesus sensed that notion as well, he immediately undermined it as a possibility.
2:9-11 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'your sins are forgiven', or to say, 'get up, and pick up your pallet and walk'? But so that you may know (oikeios) that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins - he said to the paralytic, 'I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet and go home.'
Did Jesus intentionally look to make trouble? Was he intentionally picking a fight with the religious hierarchy? Or, was he simply doing/saying 'right' because it was 'right' - regardless of the consequences? If that was so, why had he earlier sternly warned others to be quiet about his true identify? Might Jesus have simply been trying to elicit some re-thinking among the leaders? Leaving them speechless certainly helped inculcate his teachings in all the others watching this brief showdown.
He wanted these religious leaders to 'know' that he wasn't just spouting blasphemous words. This word for 'to know' (Gk. oikeios) is not about having the facts (Gk. ginosko), but in entering into the family (oikos) of God - to 'know' the truth as one who walks side by side with God. In other words, Jesus wasn't merely confronting the scribes as if they were completely given over to evil, but was trying to win their hearts to God. He was attempting to bring them into spiritual ‘balance’.
His 'miracles' pointed to him as the Messiah. His 'forgiveness of sins' pointed to him as more than the expected Messiah. They either had to deal with that reality and adjust their theological teachings or reject him as a whole - which would, of course, require them to dismiss his miracles as the work of demons. That which is not understood by man is always attributed to either God or to the Devil. Unfortunately, in the next chapter Mark made it clear that they chose insanely, attributing Jesus' works to the Devil (3:22). It was easier to believe that he was demon possessed than to believe that their theology might be wrong. And so it is today.
Curiously, Jesus - according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke - loved to use the title 'son of man'. He juxtapositions his 'divinity' - in telling the paralytic that his sins are forgiven - with his obvious status as being fully 'human'. He is not God merely pretending to be a man. He is 100% man. Yet, he speaks as 100% God. I find this quite clever. Jesus often used this expression to ‘veil’ his true identity while saying and doing things that ‘revealed’ his true identity. In doing so he made it impossible to deny his humanity while making it equally impossible to deny his divinity - at least it appears that way to most Christians today.
2:12 And he got up and immediately picked up the pallet and went out in the sight of everyone, so that they were all amazed and were glorifying God, saying, 'we have never seen anything like this.'
Good teaching requires good illustrations. This one was not soon forgotten. As Jesus had been talking about the kingdom of heaven, this healing gave witness to its type and power. The kingdom was about grace and truth. It was backed up by the power of God to do anything God wanted to do. It he could heal, he could forgive. If he forgave, his healing power revealed that his forgiveness must come from the same source.
2:13 And He went out again by the seashore; and all the people were coming to Him, and He was teaching them.
Note, he was 'teaching' them. The people wanted to learn. They followed, not for miracles, but to hear more about this kingdom.
The 'good news' isn't merely something we 'do' differently in life, but it is 'about' something new in our life. There is a need to speak 'about' the kingdom of God that is here among and within us. It is of a different realm. It's characteristics are contrary to the way this world operates. Yes, it's presence ought to be made manifest by our 'good works', but it is not fully grasped only by 'good works'. It must also be 'taught'.
Yet, if we only 'teach' about the kingdom, it will not be fully grasped without 'seeing' the kingdom manifested in practical ways. If we only manifest kingdom principles in the way we live, folks will notice but not understand what it all means without a 'teacher'.
At least at that point in time, at that place in the world, Jesus was able to balance his teaching/preaching with acts of compassion. The one did not obscure the other. Rather, the one gave witness to the other - as it was meant to do.
0 comments:
Post a Comment