THE MAN WITH THE PALSY & THE PHYSICIAN

THE MAN WITH THE PALSY

Matt. 9:2-8

Mark 2:1-12

Luke 5:17-26

Palsy: pôlzē Paralysis, esp. that which is accompanied by involuntary tremors.

       The account of our Lord's dealing with the man suffering with the palsy, and brought by his friends into the presence of Christ is given by Matthew, Mark and Luke. The stories are complementary, and help us to a right appreciation of the event. Perhaps it may be said that it is of arresting importance, because it is the first occasion on record in the ministry of our Lord on which we are told that He declared a man's sins to be forgiven, His authority for the renouncement being immediately challenged by the scribes and Pharisees.

        We may remind ourselves in passing that we only have one other instance recorded where He made the same pronouncement and that was to the woman in the house of Simon. There also His authority was challenged.

        The matter is important, because this whole subject of the forgiveness of sins is the central one to the Christian Gospel. For "What is Christianity?" "What is the distinctive thing that Christianity has to proclaim to men?" And the answer to these questions is found in the simple declaration, "The forgiveness of sins." There is no question that this answer is right. Christianity has many applications and values; but as a distinct message of God to man, it is the announcement of the possibility of the forgiveness of sins.

        The account we are considering is one full of charm. Jesus had arrived at His own city, that is Capernaum, and was there teaching within a house, which was so crowded that no more could enter. One of the evangelists says no one could get near the doors. Of course, we remember that those Eastern houses were built round a quadrangle. In many cases these quadrangles were open, but in other cases they were lightly roofed over. There is no doubt that it was so in this case. In Luke's account we find that the occasion was a special one in that there was gathered together an arresting company of people. He says: "There were Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by, which were come out of every village of Galilee and Judea and Jerusalem."

        The time had arrived when these men were becoming critical of Jesus, and they had come to Capernaum from these scattered places. It was really a gathering of experts in theology and religion.

        While He was talking to them the interruption occurred. Suddenly something was taking place, which must have attracted a somewhat startled attention. The roof was being broken up. The way to that roof would be by a staircase outside the building, up which this little company had passed, carrying the man sick of the palsy. We can imagine how, in spite of the crowded condition of the house itself, room was made as the man was lowered into the midst of the assembly. We seem to be able to see him lying on his bed, in the presence of Jesus. Let us not forget that these learned doctors were watching the whole proceeding.

        Now, following our regular method, let us attempt to see this man, and then watch our Lord's method with him.

        As we look at him of course we first see him suffering from that terrible form of physical disability described as palsy. On that side, he was, quite evidently, a derelict. He could not walk. He had to be carried. As we proceed with the account it becomes evident that this, as in other cases, is one of a man suffering disability as the result of moral malady. This is proven by the fact that the first word our Lord addressed to him had to do with this question of sin. I think we are absolutely justified in believing that as he lay there, a physical wreck, in the presence of Christ, he was profoundly conscious of the reason for his condition, and therefore he would be filled with a sense of fear. That further is substantiated by the fact that our Lord addressed to him a word that told him to dismiss his fear.

        I think, further, any careful observation of the man will show that however weak and trembling he was, he was conscious of some element of faith in Jesus. Speaking of the fact that he was brought to Jesus, the evangelist says, "When He saw their faith." Much has been written about that as to whether it was the faith of the men that brought him, or whether his own was included. My own conviction is that in that plural pronoun there was included his own faith, together with that of the men who brought him. To me it is inconceivable that he was carried there against his will. He was surely brought with his own consent. We need to remember that Capernaum was now the very center of the activity of Jesus. This man would have heard the accounts of what He had been doing; and conscious of his own disability, both physically and morally, there would spring up within his heart a desire to be brought into contact with this great Healer and Teacher. Whether he had any hope that his sin could be dealt with we have no means of knowing. Probably not. But there was some measure, shall we say, of reflective faith which made him give his consent to his friends to carry him into the presence of the Lord. This, then, is a picture of the man, as far as we are able to see it.

        Then we turn our attention to the Lord's methods with him, and we notice in passing that He said three things to him. The first was "Son, be of good cheer"; the second and central, "Thy sins are forgiven"; and the last, a little later, "Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thy house." Between the second and the third of these words spoken to him, Jesus had something to say to the critics surrounding Him, which becomes part and parcel of the account, and is full of vital importance.

        The first word, according to Matthew was, "Son, be of good cheer." At least that is how we have rendered it. As a matter of fact, the word used by our Lord, teknon, is not "Son." It is a diminutive, and a word of infinite tenderness. It may be rendered "Child." It is the word that the Virgin Mother had used to Jesus in the long ago. This in itself is very revealing. There the man lay, derelict physically and morally, filled with fear, and yet perhaps wistfully wondering, and Christ's first word to him was this tender word, "Child." He looked into his eyes haunted with the consciousness of sin, and wondering what this great Healer and Teacher would say; and the first word that he heard was the word "Child."

        Then, and of course in immediate connection, the words "Be of good cheer"; and here again I am anxious to get the full force of that, and so accept the rendering at once, "Be of good courage." In our common use of the words "Good cheer" the real force of the idea is lost. The address of Jesus so rendered carries the thought which we express when we say, Cheer up. We’ll let it be at once recognized that that is the language of those who do not understand the human heart. To say to a man trembling with physical weakness, and haunted with moral malady, cheer up, is at once impertinence and an insult. This was not the word of the Lord to him, but rather "Be of good courage."

        And here once more we will halt, for perhaps technical and yet very important examination. There are two Greek verbs both of them quite accurately rendered courage, and yet having an entirely different significance. The Greek verb tharseo refers to courage, but refers to courage subjectively. The Greek word tolmao also refers to courage, but it describes courage objectively. Tolmao describes a form of courage which is a very real one, which a man exercises in order to master his fear. The Greek word tharseo describes the courage resulting from the utter absence of fear. This is undoubtedly the higher form of courage. I do not undervalue for a single moment the courage, which, in spite of fear, and indeed, in order to its defeat, goes forward in activity. That is certainly a real courage. The courage, however, suggested by the word tharseo is a subjective courage, the courage that consists in an absolute absence of fear, which is a far rarer thing than the courage, which, in spite of fear, goes forward in activity.

        Now after this somewhat lengthened introduction, we turn to ask which of these words did Jesus use to this man? It was not tolmao, which means get up and act, and master your fear; but rather tharseo, which means there is nothing to be afraid of; banish your fear. We may pause here to remark that we find in the records five occasions when our Lord used that form of address. To this sick man then He said this amazing thing, do not be afraid. He was addressing Himself to the man's immediate consciousness. Palsied, he was shaking in every part of his body, and unquestionably his whole moral nature was quickened with fear. To him, then, Jesus said in effect, there is nothing to be afraid of. We can imagine that the man at first would say within himself, Nothing to be afraid of? I am a derelict, I am ruined, I am blighted by sin. It was to that unquestioned consciousness that our Lord said, "Child, be of good courage."

        Then, without any pause, He immediately gave the man the reason for the banishing of his fear. He did it in the words, "Thy sins are forgiven." It was a simple sentence, but full of significance. Our Lord used the plural number "sins", referring to all failures, all comings-short in life spiritually, morally, and therefore physically.

        These, said our Lord to him, are forgiven. Once more we are in the presence of an arresting word. By a very literal translation we may render it, "Thy sins are sent forth." That by no means contradicts the idea of forgiveness, but interprets it. Thus, if our Lord's first words were addressed to that which was uppermost in his consciousness, as He said, "Child, be of good courage," the immediately following and connected word was addressed to the reason of his fear. Once more, as so constantly here, we must interpret by the Personality of our Lord. In that Presence the man had become more acutely conscious of his sin than even of his physical disability. He found himself lying in the light of those eyes which even then on the earthly level were eyes of fire. He was conscious of the penetrating glance and unquestionably conscious of his own sin as he had never been before.

        The tremendous nature of the word by which the Lord had declared that his sins were dismissed, was immediately challenged. Matthew says that the religious watchers for the moment without question with perfect sincerity said, "This Man blasphemeth." We have been born and brought up in a Christian atmosphere, and so have been familiar through all our lives with the idea of the forgiveness of sins. This is so much so that we are hardly startled to hear a reference to it. If we go back and listen to it as these men heard it from the lips of Jesus, and listen from their standpoint, we shall understand their protest. They realized that ultimately the dealing with sin was possible only to God. Mark and Luke tell us that they asked the question: "Who but God can forgive sins?"

        For a moment let us say that in their outlook they were perfectly right. Necessarily I am not suggesting that they were right when they charged Him with blasphemy. They certainly were right when they declared none could forgive sins but God only. That inescapable truth in the moral realm is acknowledged by the whole Church of God, whether Protestant or Romanist. It may be said that the Roman Church claims that the priest forgives sins. Ultimately that is not true. The Roman Church claims that the priest becomes the mouthpiece of God. We are not in agreement with that statement, but the fact remains that why we have said is true; none has the ultimate right or authority to tell a man that his sins are dismissed except God Himself. Will the Roman Church correct their false doctrine?

        The answer of our Lord to these rulers was a very arresting one. He asked them: "Whether is easier, to say, Thy sins are forgiven; or to say, Arise, and walk?"

        In other words, He asked whether it was easier to perform a task in the moral or the physical. The implied answer intended by the form the question took, was that these men were incapable in either realm. In effect our Lord told them they were quite right, that God alone could forgive sins; but it was equally true that God alone could deal with that physical dereliction. No man was able to say to this derelict, "Take up thy bed, and walk" and immediately produce the result. It was only God Who could do this. It was only a question of observation. The forgiveness of sins could not be seen. It was an inward and spiritual action. The healing of the body could be seen. It came into obvious observation.

        Therefore, our Lord said: "That ye may know that the Son of man hath authority on earth to forgive sins,"

        He fumed to the man, and said: "Arise, and take up thy bed, and go unto thy house."

        Immediately the thing was done. He rose, rolled up his mattress, and went home. Thus they saw in the physical that which was an act of God, and it demonstrated the possibility of the act of God in the unseen realm which was moral.

        We pause there to point out that all healing in the physical, the records of which we have in the life of Jesus, were activities of God. The great summary referring to such action is found in the first sermon in the light of Pentecost, in which Peter declared: "Jesus . . . a Man approved of God unto you by powers and wonders and signs, which God did by Him in the midst of you."

        Every wonder wrought in the realm of the physical was the act of God through Him; and whether men realize it or not, God was seen working through Him. So with this man. Our Lord was demonstrating the fact that He had authority from God, which operated through Him in the realm of the physical, which was intended to be a demonstration of the fact that He had similar authority in the realm of the moral; and therefore was able to say, "Thy sins are forgiven thee."

        All this concerning His authority in the realm of the moral is found stated in His own words recorded in the Gospel according to John. "Therefore doth the Father love Me, because I lay down My life, that I may take it again. No one taketh it away from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it again."

        In that saying we find the great secret of authority given to Him to forgive sins. It was because of that that He had the right and power to say to a man, Thy sins are dismissed. The matter is so full of importance that we pause a moment with this question of authority. It is not one of power, but of authority. The references to this are full of vital importance in the Gospel according to Matthew. The word does not often occur. Its first occurrence is at the close of the record of the Sermon on the Mount, when a multitude were astonished at His authority. The next reference is one we have been considering, When He claimed to have authority to forgive sins. The final one is found in the last chapter, where He said all authority in heaven and on earth had been given to Him. If we take these three outstanding references, we find His ethical authority, His redeeming authority, His governing authority. At the center therefore is this word of redeeming authority, His authority to say to the troubled soul of man burdened with sin, "Thy sins are forgiven."

        We come in conclusion to the third word spoken to the man: "Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thy house."

        As the word was spoken, unquestionably the power was imparted The man who had heard Him say, "Thy sins are forgiven," and at least possibly may have wondered whether it was so, heard the command in the realm of the physical, and discovering his power to obey, found a vindication of the words: "Be of good courage; thy sins are forgiven."

        He knew by the physical deliverance that he was indeed loosed from his sins.

        We close by reminding ourselves of that which we said at the beginning of the article that this is the utmost wonder and value of the account. Necessarily there are many things which are not told in the account itself. For fuller teaching we pass to other words that fell from the lips of Jesus, and for final interpretation to the teaching of the Holy Spirit through the apostles, as we find that in the letters of the New Testament.

        The utmost revelation is that of Christ's authority in the matter of sin. He has that authority now. He still can say to the soul of man, "Be of good courage; thy sins are dismissed." That is, He can say to the soul of man what no human being has a right to say under any conditions.

        If we would have the final explanation of this authority, this is the central fact of our Gospel, this message to the world; we discover it in words written by an apostle later: "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself."

        If Jesus be Man, and none other than Man, I can wonderingly admire Him, but I know that as Man He cannot deal with my sin. If God be in Christ, and if that be the interpretation of the Cross, and it surely is, then I know that upon the basis of eternal righteousness, God can through Him, forgive my sins.