Matthew 9:1-7: Jesus Forgives and Heals a Paralytic
Hover over the references to see the Biblical text
Matthew 9:1-7
Having been asked to leave the region of the Gadarenes, Jesus crosses back over the lake, which I presume puts him back in Capernaum. Some men arrive carrying their paralyzed friend. The text doesn't report that they have asked for anything, but the scene itself intimates they were there to have Jesus heal the paralytic.
Up until this point in Matthew's gospel, Jesus has healed many people, but he hasn't made any declarations about forgiveness (other than the contingent statement forgive and you'll be forgive, but if you don't forgiven, you won't be forgiven either in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 6:14-15). That's our context as readers of the narrative, but for a Jew at the time the context was even bolder: only God can provide forgiveness, and only through the sacrifices prescribed under the law. So, the Pharisees' response is understandable: Jesus is undermining the core of their faith! And it's not just the Pharisees who would have had no theological context for what Jesus said; the paralytic and his friends had no reason to expect Jesus' statement. If they were looking for forgiveness, they would have gone to the priests. That was what you did. That was how it worked.
This, of course, raises the question, what is the connection between the paralytic's sins and his condition? There certainly seems to be one. Jesus said, "But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins,” and then he said to the paralyzed man, "Get up, take your mat and go home" (Matthew 9:6 NIV). Jesus makes that association, so we must too. As the Dutch theologian Hendrik van der Loos observed, Jesus performed the healing "as proof" of his ability for forgive sins.1
This very clearly associates the two, at least as far as that specific case of paralysis was concerned. However, this is the first time Jesus makes this association, and he has already healed large numbers of people. Because of this, it seems reasonable to me to assume the man's paralysis was the direct result of his own sins. That would explain why Jesus brings forgiveness into the equation of healing at this point and not at any previous time. It is not necessary to conclude that all sickness is a direct result of personal sin, however. This point is attested to by van der Loos as well, who states that "Jesus does not deal with the problem of suffering", but rather he removes "the personal atmosphere."2 It could be said, in fact, that Jesus simply changes the focus from "who's too blame" to "what's to be done?"
That said, from the theological perspective of the broader narrative, this healing is directly followed by the dinner at Matthew's house (Matthew 9:9-13) where Jesus tells the Pharisees, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners" (Matthew 9:12-13 NIV). That context might also provide a reason for the placement in the narrative of this particular healing, making it part of a discussion on forgiveness. Looked at from that perspective, chronology3 takes a back seat, and the need for forgiveness—in the general sense of forgiving all sins—as an enabler or prerequisite for healing can be extrapolated as an overarching truth rather than applying only to the relationship between this specific man's sin and his medical condition.
I would argue that both can be true: that there is a general truth regarding healing and forgiveness and that there was a more direct correlation between this man's sin and his condition. In fact, the reference to Isaiah 53:4 (Isaiah 53 in general and Isaiah 53:5-6 specifically, make this relevant to forgiveness) in Matthew 8:17 also suggests a correlation between sin and healing. As far as the actual practice of healing goes, there doesn't seem to be a model in Matthew that makes a declaration (or impartation) of forgiveness a requirement in every case. Actually, it would seem to suggest that it would be relatively rare for there to be a direct correlation between a person's own sin and any ill health they might be suffering from. Identifying that connection would require the Lord making it known (perhaps through a word of knowledge) and a lot of humility in presenting that revelation.
FOOTNOTES
1. Hendrik van der Loos, The Miracles of Jesus [Supplements to Novum Testamentum, vol. VIIII], E. J. Brill, 1965, p. 261.
2. Ibid. p. 258-259.
3. If you are interested in a brief, high level discussion of various theological perspectives on chronology in the gospel accounts, here is a good external resource: "The Problem of Apparent Chronological Contradictions in the Synoptics". In paragraph four above, I am taking a Topical Arrangement perspective.
Matthew 9:1-7
Having been asked to leave the region of the Gadarenes, Jesus crosses back over the lake, which I presume puts him back in Capernaum. Some men arrive carrying their paralyzed friend. The text doesn't report that they have asked for anything, but the scene itself intimates they were there to have Jesus heal the paralytic.
Up until this point in Matthew's gospel, Jesus has healed many people, but he hasn't made any declarations about forgiveness (other than the contingent statement forgive and you'll be forgive, but if you don't forgiven, you won't be forgiven either in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 6:14-15). That's our context as readers of the narrative, but for a Jew at the time the context was even bolder: only God can provide forgiveness, and only through the sacrifices prescribed under the law. So, the Pharisees' response is understandable: Jesus is undermining the core of their faith! And it's not just the Pharisees who would have had no theological context for what Jesus said; the paralytic and his friends had no reason to expect Jesus' statement. If they were looking for forgiveness, they would have gone to the priests. That was what you did. That was how it worked.
This, of course, raises the question, what is the connection between the paralytic's sins and his condition? There certainly seems to be one. Jesus said, "But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins,” and then he said to the paralyzed man, "Get up, take your mat and go home" (Matthew 9:6 NIV). Jesus makes that association, so we must too. As the Dutch theologian Hendrik van der Loos observed, Jesus performed the healing "as proof" of his ability for forgive sins.1
This very clearly associates the two, at least as far as that specific case of paralysis was concerned. However, this is the first time Jesus makes this association, and he has already healed large numbers of people. Because of this, it seems reasonable to me to assume the man's paralysis was the direct result of his own sins. That would explain why Jesus brings forgiveness into the equation of healing at this point and not at any previous time. It is not necessary to conclude that all sickness is a direct result of personal sin, however. This point is attested to by van der Loos as well, who states that "Jesus does not deal with the problem of suffering", but rather he removes "the personal atmosphere."2 It could be said, in fact, that Jesus simply changes the focus from "who's too blame" to "what's to be done?"
That said, from the theological perspective of the broader narrative, this healing is directly followed by the dinner at Matthew's house (Matthew 9:9-13) where Jesus tells the Pharisees, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners" (Matthew 9:12-13 NIV). That context might also provide a reason for the placement in the narrative of this particular healing, making it part of a discussion on forgiveness. Looked at from that perspective, chronology3 takes a back seat, and the need for forgiveness—in the general sense of forgiving all sins—as an enabler or prerequisite for healing can be extrapolated as an overarching truth rather than applying only to the relationship between this specific man's sin and his medical condition.
I would argue that both can be true: that there is a general truth regarding healing and forgiveness and that there was a more direct correlation between this man's sin and his condition. In fact, the reference to Isaiah 53:4 (Isaiah 53 in general and Isaiah 53:5-6 specifically, make this relevant to forgiveness) in Matthew 8:17 also suggests a correlation between sin and healing. As far as the actual practice of healing goes, there doesn't seem to be a model in Matthew that makes a declaration (or impartation) of forgiveness a requirement in every case. Actually, it would seem to suggest that it would be relatively rare for there to be a direct correlation between a person's own sin and any ill health they might be suffering from. Identifying that connection would require the Lord making it known (perhaps through a word of knowledge) and a lot of humility in presenting that revelation.
FOOTNOTES
1. Hendrik van der Loos, The Miracles of Jesus [Supplements to Novum Testamentum, vol. VIIII], E. J. Brill, 1965, p. 261.
2. Ibid. p. 258-259.
3. If you are interested in a brief, high level discussion of various theological perspectives on chronology in the gospel accounts, here is a good external resource: "The Problem of Apparent Chronological Contradictions in the Synoptics". In paragraph four above, I am taking a Topical Arrangement perspective.
Comments
Post a Comment
Thank you for taking the time to comment. I'm looking forward to reading what you wrote!