story of the paralytic man
i read this post from wess daniel’s blog and started thinking on mark 2. there were a couple of things that stuck out to me. you can read what amount to my first thoughts in the comments section of wess’ post.
because there are so many things that one could focus on, i’ve tried to understand what mark is driving at in this passage. though it may be out of vogue, i’ve developed this chiastic structure. the focus of the passage is the confrontation with the “teachers of the law.”
a. people heard jesus was in Capernaum
b. crowd gathered, no room left
c. paralytic man’s friends opened roof, dug thru it, lowered him while he lied on mat.
d. jesus said to man: “sins are forgiven”
e. the teachers of the law thinking to themselves: jesus cant forgive sins.
e’. jesus knew what they were thinking: is it easier to forgive sins or to heal?
d’. jesus said to man: “get up, take mat, go home.”
c’. paralytic man got up, took mat, walked
b’. crowd saw man and amazed
a’. people praised god “we’ve never seen anything like this.”
if we read mk 1.40-45 and mk 2.13-17 as confrontations with established religious order, then this reading of mk 2.1-12 should come naturally. in fact, this confrontation with the teachers of the law and the religious leaders continues in mark’s gospel (see mk 2.23-3.6, mk 3.20-30, etc).
what we find is that jesus was consistently working in the margins, that is with folks who were sick, demonized, lame, hungry, sinners. this inevitably and invariably leads to conflicts with those in power. precisely because the teachers of the law claimed the rights to know the price for sin atonement, because the priest alone could declare the leper clean, because the pharisees limited with whom one could associate, jesus bucks the system.
what’s amazing that is the crowd assembled to see the miraculous and to hear jesus teach. but still in v. 12, they were amazed and claimed never to have seen anything like this.
what if they were amazed as much as how jesus handled the religious leaders as with how he forgave sins/healed? what if the healing was itself a confrontational act (…that you may know the Son of Man has authority…)?
No related posts.
Well, I read that link to the other blog – I think Jesus was just sending the man home (the Greek reads ‘go into your house’) rather than sending him out as a missionary. But, oh well. It’s not my sermon.
Also, chiastic structures aren’t ‘out of vogue’. I think you’ll find just as many people squeezing stories into them today as you would in years gone by.
One other thought…the ones whom Jesus confronted were not just ‘religious’ leaders as such. I think it’s difficult for us to understand that people in the ancient Mediterranean world did not neatly divide ‘religion’ and ‘politics’ (or ‘social issues’). These things were one in the same. The ‘religious’ elite in the region were also rather elite in what we might call ‘political’ or ‘social’ ways. We could very well construe Jesus as kicking back against the established political order (which, in a larger sense was Roman imperium) or even against the social elite, who valued status over, perhaps, love for neighbor. It’s a great passage, all in all. I like Mark’s succinctness – no beating around the bush…just get on with it already!
i cant reduce this passage and say “the point of the story is…” but i think i have been guilty of focusing on the miracle or the friends more than the confrontation. this isnt a neat and clean chiasm. but it helps bring focus to a majorly neglected part of the story and highlights a huge thread of coursing thru the book.
i agree about the religious leaders. the intermingling of things religious, political, and social is evidenced by the sabbath regulations, leper policy, association restrictions, etc. i’m not sure if i should have been less specific (i.e. “leaders”) or more specific (i.e. “non-herodian jewish authorities”).
@Jon
This was exactly what I preached on. The portion on my blog was an excerpt I pulled out because it was more just me making some postulations about sub-text, etc than getting at what I felt was a driving theme in the text.
Also – Jon, Thanks for visiting my site — and do check out my final comment on my blog about the term “missionary.” I’m using loosely, I don’t think Jesus sent him back to give the four-spiritual laws or something. I’m using more in a James Wm. McClendon kind of way, were we witness with the core of our very (changed) being.
Sam, I do agree overall that Jesus was working in very marginal areas, or perhaps with very marginal people. I think your observations on the passage are well thought. As far as “leaders” or “non-Herodian Jewish authorities”, either would work, I’d say. The only thing there is that Jesus had followers (making him a “leader”) and he heals the man to display his own ‘authority’ (and he was a “non-Herodian” Jewish man with authority – even ‘upon the earth’). To me, the conflict itself is central. Both parties (the scribes and Jesus) fit the bill for ‘leader’ or ‘authority’, but the challenge is always there – who is Jesus saying he is, after all? At this point in Mark, at least, he’s the one who can directly challenge the ‘elite’ of the region, which is something in and of itself.
Wess, point taken. I’m glad you hit on that in your sermon, though. It’s nice to hear that people are dealing with issues beyond just our Western spirit/flesh divide. It’s king of odd to hear people talk about the stories of Jesus in the Gospels without mentioning that these stories, along with being religious, are very political, very social, etc. I’m sure I’ll be back to your blog.
i laughed at the four spiritual laws comment. that was great!