Daniel 6:1-15

The Plot against Daniel

6:1 It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom one hundred twenty satraps, stationed throughout the whole kingdom, 2 and over them three presidents, including Daniel; to these the satraps gave account, so that the king might suffer no loss. 3 Soon Daniel distinguished himself above all the other presidents and satraps because an excellent spirit was in him, and the king planned to appoint him over the whole kingdom. 4 So the presidents and the satraps tried to find grounds for complaint against Daniel in connection with the kingdom. But they could find no grounds for complaint or any corruption, because he was faithful, and no negligence or corruption could be found in him. 5 The men said, “We shall not find any ground for complaint against this Daniel unless we find it in connection with the law of his God.”

6 So the presidents and satraps conspired and came to the king and said to him, “O King Darius, live forever! 7 All the presidents of the kingdom, the prefects and the satraps, the counselors and the governors are agreed that the king should establish an ordinance and enforce an interdict, that whoever prays to anyone, divine or human, for thirty days, except to you, O king, shall be thrown into a den of lions. 8 Now, O king, establish the interdict and sign the document, so that it cannot be changed, according to the law of the Medes and the Persians, which cannot be revoked.” 9 Therefore King Darius signed the document and interdict.

Daniel in the Lions’ Den

10 Although Daniel knew that the document had been signed, he continued to go to his house, which had windows in its upper room open toward Jerusalem, and to get down on his knees three times a day to pray to his God and praise him, just as he had done previously. 11 The conspirators came and found Daniel praying and seeking mercy before his God. 12 Then they approached the king and said concerning the interdict, “O king! Did you not sign an interdict, that anyone who prays to anyone, divine or human, within thirty days except to you, O king, shall be thrown into a den of lions?” The king answered, “The thing stands fast, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be revoked.” 13 Then they responded to the king, “Daniel, one of the exiles from Judah, pays no attention to you, O king, or to the interdict you have signed, but he is saying his prayers three times a day.”

14 When the king heard the charge, he was very much distressed. He was determined to save Daniel, and until the sun went down he made every effort to rescue him. 15 Then the conspirators came to the king and said to him, “Know, O king, that it is a law of the Medes and Persians that no interdict or ordinance that the king establishes can be changed.” (Daniel 6:1-15, NRSV)

On April 27, 2007 (Friday in the week of the Third Sunday of Easter, Year One), comments were repeated with some revision (and correction) from April 15, 2005 (Friday in the week of the Third Sunday of Easter, Year One); the revised comments are repeated here with editing and supplement:

At the conclusion of yesterday’s reading, we were told, “That very night Belshazzar, the Chaldean king, was killed. And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old” (Dan. 5:30-31 NRSV = Aram 5:30-6:1). Yesterday I suggested that the references to “Darius the Mede” (5:31; 6:1 NRSV = Aram. 6:1-2) is problematic. Some accept the conclusion of critical historians that there was no such person. Lawrence M. Wills, for example, says, “Darius the Mede is unhistorical. Darius was a famous Persian king (520-486 BCE) responsible for organizing his empire into provinces headed by ‘satraps’ or governors. According to Herodotus, Histories 3.89, Darius established twenty satrapies; contrast the exaggerated tradition of Esth. 1:1” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Dan. 6:1 NJPS 1985, 1999 = Aram. = NRSV 5:31). Contrary to that totally negative view about the existence of “Darius the Mede,” a few others suggest that the name “Darius” is a variant spelling of “Gubaru” (“Gobryas”) or “Ugbaru” (“Gobryas”), one or both of whom was a Mede. John C. Whitcomb, Jr., who “is clear in showing that ‘Greek and cuneiform sources do not mention the name of Darius in connection with Gubaru the Governor of Babylon’ ” (John Joseph Owens, Review and Expositor, 58, April 1961, 240, citing Whitcomb, Darius the Mede, 1959), attempts ”to prove that ‘Darius the Mede’ of the book of Daniel was an actual historical personage, none other than that Gubaru who can be documentarily proved to have served as the governor of “Babylon and Across the River” from the accession of Cyrus at least into the fifth year of Cambyses” (George C. Cameron, Journal of Biblical Literature, 79, January 1960, 70). Although neither of these reviewers accepts Whitcomb’s conclusion, Bert H. Hall does:

Whitcomb has taken a careful look at the ancient texts and has presented a defense of the conservative, historical position that is scholarly and acceptable. Whitcomb identifies Darius the Mede with Gubaru, whom Cyrus appointed “governor of Babylon and the region beyond the river.” . . . The political set-up was then as follows: Cyrus the Great was ruler over the Medo-Persian Empire (mentioned in Daniel 6:8); Darius the Mede was his governor over the province of Babylon, the realm ruled by Belshazzar. Under Darius were three presidents (likely officers carried over from the Babylonian regime), of whom Daniel, who had been the third ruler of the realm, was one. Under the presidents were a hundred and twenty lesser rulers called satraps, a word used in a wider sense than in later Persian usage. (The Wesleyan Bible Commentary, IV, 1969, p. 530, on Dan. 6:1-3)

Hall notes that “Daniel at this time was nearing eighty years of age. Nevertheless he distinguished himself by his excellent spirit” (ibid.). Daniel is given–or continues to hold–a significant position of leadership in the court, as “over them [i.e., over the 120 satraps, were] three presidents, including Daniel; to these the satraps gave account, so that the king might suffer no loss” (v. 2 NRSV = Aram. v. 3). “Soon,” the narrator tells us, “Daniel distinguished himself above all the other presidents and satraps because an excellent spirit was in him, and the king planned to appoint him over the whole kingdom” (v. 3 NRSV = Aram. v. 4). According to Amy-Jill Levine, “Like Joseph and Mordecai, Daniel advances in the foreign court; how Daniel impressed the Persian king is not recorded” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Dan. 6:3 NRSV). But Daniel’s competence and advancement arouses envy. “So the presidents and the satraps tried to find grounds for complaint against Daniel in connection with the kingdom. But they could find no grounds for complaint or any corruption, because he was faithful, and no negligence or corruption could be found in him” (v. 4 NRSV = Aram. v. 5). In the stories of court conflict,” says Wills, “an initial balance among the courtiers is disturbed when one of them is promoted above the others; cf. 2:49 (in reference to ch. 3); Esth. 3:1” (op. cit., on v. 3 NJPS = Heb. = v. 2 NRSV). Given Daniel’s reputation for integrity, his enemies felt they must attack him through his religious fervor and fidelity. “The men said, ‘We shall not find any ground for complaint against this Daniel unless we find it in connection with the law of his God’ ” (v. 5 NRSV = Aram. v. 6). This, says Levine, is “the first reference to Jewish law in the book of Daniel” (op. cit., on v. 5 NRSV).

So, with due protocol, “the presidents and satraps conspired and came to the king and said to him, ‘O King Darius, live forever!’ ” (v. 6 NRSV = Aram. v. 7). They request–or demand–an interdict that would force Daniel’s hand. “All the presidents of the kingdom,” they say, “the prefects and the satraps, the counselors and the governors are agreed that the king should establish an ordinance and enforce an interdict, that whoever prays to anyone, divine or human, for thirty days, except to you, O king, shall be thrown into a den of lions” (v. 7 NRSV = Aram. v. 8). “All the presidents” would include Daniel, of course (cf. vv. 2-3 NRSV = Aram. vv. 3-4), a point they fail to disclose to the king, who, apparently in all innocence (cf. his distress, v. 14 NRSV = Aram. v. 15), though flattered, of course, complies with their request. “Now, O king,” they say, “establish the interdict and sign the document, so that it cannot be changed, according to the law of the Medes and the Persians, which cannot be revoked” (v. 8 NRSV = Aram. v. 9). And so, “King Darius signed the document and interdict” (v. 9 NRSV = Aram. v. 10). Levine says, “The unalterable law of the Medes and the Persians lies also behind the plot of the book of Esther (Esth. 1:19; 8:8). Like Ahasuerus in Esther, Darius acts, without thinking, on his courtiers’ advice. Historically, however, Persian rulers supported the various religious beliefs and practices of those under imperial rule” (op. cit., on vv. 8-9 NRSV). Wills puts it this way: “Some ancient authors believed that the law of the Persian king, once enacted, could not be altered (Esth. 1:19; 8:8; Diodorus Siculus 17.30). This is likely only a popular tradition, however, and is emphasized for dramatic effect (cf. 6:14-17 [NJPS = Heb. = NRSV 6:13-16])” (op. cit., on 6:9 NJPS = Heb. = NRSV 6:8).

Daniel responded to news of the document’s signing as his opponents knew he would. “He continued to go to his house, which had windows in its upper room open toward Jerusalem, and to get down on his knees three times a day to pray to his God and praise him just as he had done previously” (v. 10 NRSV = Aram. v. 11). According to Wills, “Praying three times a day became a common Jewish practice by the mishnaic period, though it has earlier precedents (Ps. 55:18; Judith 9:1). Likewise, the Mishnah legislates praying toward Jerusalem (m Ber. 4.5). But, of course, in Daniel’s case, the conspirators caught him “in the act,” so to speak. They “came and found Daniel praying and seeking mercy (Nn0aHat4m9, mithchannan) before his God” (v. 11 NRSV = Aram. v. 12). So they immediately approach the king and charge Daniel with violating his interdict. But in order to nail down their case, they first remind the king of his–really their–interdict. “O king!,” they ask, “Did you not sign an interdict, that anyone who prays to anyone, divine or human, within thirty days except to you, O king, shall be thrown into a den of lions?” (v. 12a NRSV = Aram. v. 13a). And the king remembers, and answers, “The thing stands fast, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be revoked.” (v. 12b NRSV = Aram. v. 13b). “Aha!” they might have said. “We have him now!” (But that would have been under their breath, so to speak.) They respond to the king: “Daniel, one of the exiles from Judah, pays not attention to you, O king, or to the interdict you have signed, but he is saying his prayers three times a day” (v. 13 NRSV = Aram. v. 14). “Exiles from Judah,” says Levine, “shows ethnic antagonism: The courtiers remind Darius that Daniel is not ‘one of them’ ” (op. cit., on v. 13 NRSV).

At this point, as noted above, the king becomes “very much distressed.” “When the king heard the charge, he was very much distressed. He was determined to save Daniel, and until the sun went down he made every effort to rescue him” (v. 14 NRSV = Aram. v. 15). “Sympathy for Darius may be compromised,” says Levine, “by his willingness to pronounce the edict that condemned Daniel (v. 9). V. 16 shows that Darius knew of Daniel’s religious practices; in contrast, Nebuchadnezzar did not (3:15)” (ibid., on v. 14 NRSV). In any event, we learn in tomorrow’s reading that the king follows through with the judgment of Daniel (v. 16 NRSV = Aram. v. 17), as set up by the reminder from the conspirators that concludes today’s reading: “Know, O king, that it is a law of the Medes and Persians that no interdict or ordinance that the king establishes can be changed” (v. 15 NRSV = Aram. v. 16).

2 John 1-13

Salutation

1 The elder to the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth, and not only I but also all who know the truth, 2 because of the truth that abides in us and will be with us forever:

3 Grace, mercy, and peace will be with us from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Father’s Son, in truth and love.

Truth and Love

4 I was overjoyed to find some of your children walking in the truth, just as we have been commanded by the Father. 5 But now, dear lady, I ask you, not as though I were writing you a new commandment, but one we have had from the beginning, let us love one another. 6 And this is love, that we walk according to his commandments; this is the commandment just as you have heard it from the beginning-you must walk in it.

7 Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh; any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist! 8 Be on your guard, so that you do not lose what we have worked for, but may receive a full reward. 9 Everyone who does not abide in the teaching of Christ, but goes beyond it, does not have God; whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 Do not receive into the house or welcome anyone who comes to you and does not bring this teaching; 11 for to welcome is to participate in the evil deeds of such a person.

Final Greetings

12 Although I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink; instead I hope to come to you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete.

13 The children of your elect sister send you their greetings. (2 John 1-13, NRSV)

On May 23, 2008 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to May 18, Year Two), comments were repeated with editing and supplement from April 27, 2007 (Friday in the week of the Third Sunday of Easter, Year One), when comments were repeated with some revision and supplement from April 15, 2005 (Friday in the week of the Third Sunday of Easter, Year One). The revised comments are repeated again here:

The author, “the elder,” addresses “the elect lady and her children,” probably the local Christian community. He professes to love them, “whom I love in the truth, and not only I but also all who know the truth” (2 Jn. 1). “As in the Third Epistle,” says C. H. Dodd, “the writer does not give his name, but calls himself simply ‘The Presbyter’ [presbuvteroV, presbyteros]” (Johannine Epistles, The Moffatt Commentary, 1946, p. 143 on 2 Jn. 1). Dodd suggests that a “quasi-technical use of the term [elder, presbuvteroV, presbyteros] was current for a short time, mainly or even exclusively in the Province of Asia–the home, to all appearance, of our Presbyter” (ibid., p. 155, on 3 Jn. 1-2). “Christians of this province,” he adds,

seem to have spoken of ‘the elders’ (Presbyters) in referring to a group of teachers who formed a link between the apostles and the next generation (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., III. 39. 3-4). ‘The Elders, disciples of the Apostles’ is the formula in Irenaeus (who came from the Province of Asia: Adv. Haer., V. 36, cf. V. 33. 3). They were apparently a small group; and it was quite possible for one of them to be spoken of, in appropriate circumstances, as ‘The Presbyter.’ Irenaeus, for example, several times refers to things which he had learned from ‘The Presbyter,’ or ‘The Presbyter, the disciple of the Apostles,’ without naming him (Irenaeus, op. cit., IV. 47. 1, 49. 1, I. 8. 17; Eusebius, op. cit., V. 8, 8). Papias, also a provincial of Asia, refers to ‘The Presbyter’ (Eusebius, op. Cit., III. 39. 15), meaning, apparently, the Presbyter John, whom he distinguishes from John the Apostle. It is probable that the term is here being used in a similar way. As Irenaeus spoke of his early teacher, who had transmitted to him the apostolic traditions, so Gaius and Demetrius spoke of their teacher, the man who stood to them for the authority of the Apostles, as ‘The Presbyter,’ simply. He need not have been, and probably was not, the same person as Irenaeus’s ‘Presbyter.’ He need not have been, though he may have been, the same as Papias’s ‘Presbyter John.’ In any case, we must suppose that he held so outstanding a position among Christians of the province of Asia, as a mediator of the apostolic tradition, that he could write, whether to an individual adherent or to a local congregation, under the title ‘The Presbyter,’ without feeling the necessity of adding his name. (ibid., pp. 155-156)

The greeting uses the language of greetings in other New Testament letters, “grace” (cavriV, charis), “mercy” ( e[leoV, eleos), and “peace” (eijrhvnh, eirēnē), but they are presented in a statement, “Grace, mercy, and peace will be (future tense, indicative [statement] mood) with us ( e[stai meq= hJmw:n, estai meth’ hēmōn)” (v. 3a) rather than a wish, as in 1 Peter, “May grace and peace be yours in abundance” (plhqunqeivh, plēthuntheiē, aorist tense, optative [wish] mood) (1 Pet. 1:2b), or in Pauline epistles where the wish is implied by the dative case without a verb as in Philippians, “Grace to you (hJmi:n, hymin) and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:2 = Rom. 1:7b = 1 Cor. 1:3 = 2 Cor. 1:2 = Gal. 1:3, etc.). Second John is also unique in that it is the only New Testament Epistle in which the greeting refers to “us” rather than “you” (as above). In the Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy, Titus), neither pronoun is used with the words “grace, mercy and peace,” but the preceding “to Timothy . . . (1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:2) or “to Titus . . . (Tit. 1:4) focuses on the recipient. In 2 John, the presbyter closely identifies with the recipients, as though they were his own community, or perhaps closely related to his own community, saying “Grace, mercy and peace will be with us from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Father’s Son in truth and love” (v. 3).

After this greeting, John expresses joy, being “overjoyed to find some of your children ( ejk tw:n tek;nwn sou, ek tōn teknōn sou, partitive) walking in the truth, just as we have been commanded by the Father” (v. 4). Although the “deceivers” who “have gone out into the world” (v. 7), appear to be not, or perhaps no longer, associated with the presbyter’s community, the partitive expression, “some of your children walking in the truth,” may indicate his concern for others, left unmentioned, as well. He reminds the church, “dear lady,” of the commandment, not new, “but one we have had from the beginning, let us love one another” (v. 5). “The new commandment to love one another,” says Pheme Perkins, “has been an identifying mark of Johannine Christianity from its beginning (Jn. 13:34-35; 1 Jn. 2:7-10)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on 2 Jn. 4-6). John defines the love which is the new commandment. “And this is love, that we walk according to his commandments; this is the commandment just as you have heard it from the beginning–you must walk in it” (v. 6).

As noted above, the elder warns against “many deceivers [who] have gone out into the world” (v. 7a). Although their going out ( ejxh:lqon, exēlthon) could imply that they have left this Christian community–Perkins calls them “secessionists” (ibid., on vv. 7-9)–the term has been defined in one instance, Mark 8:11, as “appear” (Wilbur Gingrich, Shorter Lexicon, 1983, s.v. exerchomai; NRSV has “came”). But whether they come from within the community or from outside, John clearly regards them as a threat to his own people. They “do not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh,” and so “any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist!” (v. 7b). This clearly refers to the docetic heresy, according to which, Jesus, the Christ only “seemed” to be human. They exaggerate the spiritual and divine side of Christ while denying that he was fully human. “Be on your guard,” says the elder, “so that you do not lose what we have worked for, but may receive a full reward” (v. 8). The warning against the deceivers continues. “Everyone who does not abide in the teaching of Christ, but goes beyond it, does not have God; whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son” (v. 9). The people are specifically warned against any contact with the deceivers. “Do not receive into the house or welcome anyone who comes to you and does not bring this teaching; for to welcome is to participate in the evil deeds of such a person” (vv. 10-11). He has more to say, but he prefers not to say it in writing, but rather, “instead,” he says, “I hope to come to you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete” (v. 12). He brings the letter to a close with a brief greeting: “The children of your elect sister [probably his own congregation] send you their greetings” (v. 13).

Luke 5:12-26

Jesus Cleanses a Leper (Mt 8.1-4; Mk 1.40-45)

12 Once, when he was in one of the cities, there was a man covered with leprosy. When he saw Jesus, he bowed with his face to the ground and begged him, “Lord, if you choose, you can make me clean.” 13 Then Jesus stretched out his hand, touched him, and said, “I do choose. Be made clean.” Immediately the leprosy left him. 14 And he ordered him to tell no one. “Go,” he said, “and show yourself to the priest, and, as Moses commanded, make an offering for your cleansing, for a testimony to them.” 15 But now more than ever the word about Jesus spread abroad; many crowds would gather to hear him and to be cured of their diseases. 16 But he would withdraw to deserted places and pray.

Jesus Heals a Paralytic (Mt 9.2-8; Mk 2.1-12)

17 One day, while he was teaching, Pharisees and teachers of the law were sitting near by (they had come from every village of Galilee and Judea and from Jerusalem); and the power of the Lord was with him to heal. 18 Just then some men came, carrying a paralyzed man on a bed. They were trying to bring him in and lay him before Jesus; 19 but finding no way to bring him in because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and let him down with his bed through the tiles into the middle of the crowd in front of Jesus. 20 When he saw their faith, he said, “Friend, your sins are forgiven you.” 21 Then the scribes and the Pharisees began to question, “Who is this who is speaking blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?” 22 When Jesus perceived their questionings, he answered them, “Why do you raise such questions in your hearts? 23 Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Stand up and walk’? 24 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”-he said to the one who was paralyzed-“I say to you, stand up and take your bed and go to your home.” 25 Immediately he stood up before them, took what he had been lying on, and went to his home, glorifying God. 26 Amazement seized all of them, and they glorified God and were filled with awe, saying, “We have seen strange things today.” (Luke 5:12-26, NRSV)

On September 30, 2008 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to September 28, Year Two), comments were repeated with editing and supplement from April 27, 2007 (Friday in the week of the Third Sunday of Easter, Year One), when comments were repeated from October 3, 2006 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to September 28, Year Two), when they were repeated from April 15, 2005 (Friday in the week of the Third Sunday of Easter, Year One). They are repeated again here:

Luke’s two miracles reported here have parallel accounts in Mark and Matthew, though Matthew separates them by including seven episodes between them the Centurion of Capernaum (Mt. 8:5-13f; Lk. 7:1-10; cf. Jn. 4:46b-54; Mk. 2:1; 7:30), the Healing of Peter’s Mother-in-Law (Mt. 8:14-15; Mk. 1:29-31; Lk. 4:38-39), the Sick Healed at Evening (Mt. 8:16-17; Mk. 1:32-34; Lk. 4:40-41), On Following Jesus (Mt. 8:18-22; Mk. 4:35; Lk. 9:57-62), Stilling the Storm (Mt. 8:23-27; Mk. 4:35-41; Lk. 8:22-25), and the Gadarene Demoniacs (Mt. 8:28-34; cf. the Gerasene Demoniac Mk. 5:1-20; Lk. 8:26-39) (cf. Kurt Aland, ed., Synopsis of the Four Gospels, 1982, rev. printing 1985, secs. 85-91, 137, pp. 73-80, 123-125). Parallel texts for today’s reading are in the separate file, Leper and Paralytic.

The first of these accounts, the Cleansing of the Leper (Mk. 1:40-45; Lk. 5:1-12; Mt. 8:1-4) is an example of Jesus’ compassion for and ministry to people who were on the outskirts of society. The leper would be shunned, not permitted to socialize with other people, much less to approach the synagogue or temple for worship. This reminds us of Jesus’ ministries to the Samaritan woman (Jn. 4), the widow’s son at Nain (Lk. 7), the woman with the hemorrhage (Mt. 9, Mk. 5, Lk. 8), and so forth. “Once when he [Jesus] was in one of the cities,” says Luke, “there was a man covered with leprosy” (Lk. 5:12a). The reference to “one of the cities” (cf. “other cities,” 4:43) is rather indefinite, as is the time reference “once” (NRSV), added as part of the rephrasing of the Greek idiom: Kai; ejgevneto ejn tw:/ ei\nai aujto;n ejn mia:/ tw:n povlewn (Kai egeneto en tō(i) einai auton en mia(i) tō n poleōn). A rather literal translation would be, “And it happened in his being in one of the cities”; cf. “While Jesus was in one of the towns” (v. 12a TNIV). For Mark, the context is a preaching tour as Jesus “went through Galilee” (Mk. 1:39; cf. Mt. 4;23; Lk. 4:44). For Matthew, the Sermon on the Mount (chaps. 5-7) has just ended, and “when Jesus had come down from the mountain, great crowds followed him; and there was a leper who came to him” (Mt. 8:1, 2a). In Matthew and Mark the “man full of leprosy” (ajnh;r plhvrhV levpraV, anēr plērēs lepras, Lk. 5:12) is simply “a leper” (leprovV, lepros, Mt. 8:2; Mk. 1:40). Luke has him fall “on his face” before Jesus where Matthew and Mark have him kneel, and Matthew and Luke begin the supplication with “Lord,” but the three have, “if you choose (qevlh/V, thelē(i)s [cf. ‘are willing’ TNIV], you can make me clean” (Mk. 1:40b; Mt. 8:2b; Lk. 5:12b).

In response, Mark notes that Jesus was “moved with pity,” and all say that Jesus “stretched out his hand and touched him,” saying “I do choose (qevlw, thelō [‘I am willing’ TNIV). Be made clean!” (Mk. 1:41; Mt. 8:3a; Lk. 5:13a). “Jesus’ touching this man,” says Marion Lloyd Soards, “countered the common religious assumption that such contact rendered a person unclean. The healing demonstrates the power of God in Jesus overcoming that which was deemed unclean” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Lk. 5:14). And the result was immediate. “Immediately the leprosy left him,” says Mark, “and He was made clean” (Mk. 1:42; cf. Lk. 5:13b, omitting “and he was made clean,” perhaps considered obvious in light of the request. Matthew condenses the two clauses into one, “Immediately his leprosy was cleansed” (Mt. 8:3b). The three Gospels report Jesus instruction to tell noone, “after sternly warning him” (Mk. 1:43). “See that you say nothing to anyone; but go, show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, as a testimony to them” (Mk. 1:44; cf. Mt. 8:4). According to Richard A. Horsley, “Since Jesus has already made the man clean, his instructions must be intended either as a demonstrative testimony or ‘witness’ against the priest and the costly offerings required by their code (Lev. 14:10-32) or as a facetious remark (the now-clean man does pointedly disobey the instructions)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Mk. 1:44). Mark and Luke report that the man goes out and tells so many people about his cleansing that Jesus’ fame greatly increased. “But he went out and began to proclaim it freely, and to spread the word, so that Jesus could no longer go into a town openly, but stayed out in the country; and people came to him from every quarter” (Mk. 1:45). Luke says that, “now more than ever the word about Jesus spread abroad; many crowds would gather to hear him and to be cured of their diseases” (Lk. 5:15). And he adds that Jesus “would withdraw to deserted places to pray” (v. 16). Matthew has already emphasized the spreading of Jesus’ fame and the gathering of crowds (Mt. 4:24-25; cf. Mk. 3:7;-8), which set the situation for the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5-7).

The ancient Christian theologian Origen asks “Why did Jesus Touch the Leper?” (Mk. 1:41; Lk. 5:13)

Origen: And why did he touch him, since the law forbade the touching of a leper? He touched him to show that “all things are clean to the clean” [Tit. 1:15]. Because the filth that is in one person does not adhere to others, nor does external uncleanness defile the clean of heart. So he touches him in his untouchability, that he might instruct us in humility; that he might teach us that we should despise no one, or abhor them, or regard them as pitiable, because of some wound of their body or some blemish for which they might be called to render an account. . . . So, stretching forth his hand to touch, the leprosy immediately departs. The hand of the Lord is found to have touched not a leper, but a body made clean! Let us consider here, beloved, if there be anyone here that has the taint of leprosy in his soul, or the contamination of guilt in his heart? If he has, instantly adoring God, let him say: “Lord, if you will, you can make me clean.” (Origen, SSGF 1:301-02, cited by Thomas C. Oden and Christopher Hall, Mark, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament, II, 1998, p. 26).

In Mark the report of the healing of the paralytic, which follows the report of the healing of the leper, is connected to it. “When he [Jesus] returned to Capernaum after some days,” says Mark, “it was reported that he was home” (Mk. 2:1; cf. 1:21, “they went to Capernaum,” and 1:35, where Jesus “got up and went out to a deserted place”). Luke, who follows Mark’s sequence here, has put Jesus “in one of the cities” (Lk. 5:12), but now his reference to the setting is nonspecific. “One day, while he was teaching, Pharisees and teachers of the law were sitting near by (they had come from every village of Galilee and Judea and from Jerusalem); and the power of the Lord was with him to heal” (Lk. 5:17). Matthew, apparently by his practice of topical arrangement, as noted above, has inserted seven episodes between the two healing miracles, as part of a section Elwyn E. Tilden and Bruce M. Metzger have called “Events in Galilee” (NOAB, 2^nd ed., 1994, on Mt. 8:1-9:38; compare their subheadings for the next two collections of narrative reports, “Narratives Illustrating the Authority Claimed by Jesus,” 11:2-12:50, and “Events of Decisive Acceptance or Rejection of Jesus,” 13:53-17:27).

Mark is graphic in his description of the crowd and the difficulty it presented to the “people [who] came, bringing to him [Jesus] a paralyzed man, carried by four of them” (Mk. 2:3). Luke, who emphasizes the presence of “Pharisees and teachers of the law” (Lk. 5:17), says, “Just then some men came, carrying a paralyzed man on a bed” (v. 18a; cf. Mt. 9:2a with “lying on a bed”). “So many gathered around,” says Mark, “that there was no longer room for them, not even in front of the door; and he was speaking the word to them” (v. 2). And he tells us that “when they [the men carrying the paralytic] could not bring him to Jesus because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him; and after having dug through it, they let down the mat on which the paralytic lay” (v. 4). Horsley says, “Houses often had a flat roof consisting of mud plaster over a wood framework” (op. cit., on 2:4). Luke recognizes the same difficulty in getting the paralytic to Jesus, but has a different conception of the materials used to construct the roof. “They were trying to bring him in and lay him before Jesus; but finding no way to bring him in because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and let him down with his bed through the tiles into the middle of the crowd in front of Jesus” (Lk. 5:18b, 19). According to Soards, “through the tiles is Luke’s adjustment of Mark’s story to present a tiled roof rather than the mud-plaster roof in which Mark’s account says the people ‘dug’ a whole through which to lower the paralytic” (op. cit., 2001, on Lk. 5:19). Matthew omits reference to the difficult access to Jesus, and proceeds immediately to Jesus’ response to the situation. The three Gospels note his reference to their “faith”: “When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, ‘Son [“Take heart, son” Mt., “Friend” Lk.], your sins are forgiven” (Mk.2:5; Mt. 9:2b; Lk. 5:20). Soards says, “The connection here between forgiveness of sins and healing reflects an ancient belief that sickness resulted from sin (see Ex. 34:7; Jn. 9:2)” (ibid., on v. 20). Jesus here apparently acknowledges the cultural understanding of this connection, but elsewhere to his disciples, he says, “Neither this man nor his parents [have sinned]; he was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed in him” (Jn. 9:3). Obery M. Hendricks says, “Suffering was attributed to sin, either of the parents (Ex. 20:5) or of the man before birth (Gen. Rab. [an ancient Rabbinical commentary on Genesis] 63: [39c] on Gen. 25:22; Wis. 8:190-20). Jesus denies this explanation and shifts attention from cause to purpose; this is an opportunity for God to act” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Jn. 9:1-3).

Some scribes present on this occasion take umbrage at Jesus’ reference to forgiveness. “Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, ‘Why does this fellow speak in this way? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Mk. 2:6-7; cf. Mt. 9:3, and Lk. 5:21; Luke includes “the Pharisees”). According to the three Gospels, Jesus knows what they are thinking (Mk. 2:8a; Mt. 9:4a; Lk. 5:22a), and his rhetorical question amounts to a rebuke. “Why do you raise such questions in your hearts,” he asks (Mk. 2:8b; Lk. 5:22b). In Matthew, Jesus’ first question is even sharper. “Why do you think evil in your hearts?” (Mt. 9:4). “Which is easier,” continues Jesus, “to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Stand up and take your mat and walk’?” (Mk. 2:9). Both Matthew and Luke shorten the last clause, “Stand up and walk” (Mt. 9:5; Lk. 5:23). As this story was told in Christian preaching, in the traditions used by the Evangelists who wrote it down, the main point was Jesus’ authority to forgive sins. “But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” he says, “I say to you [i.e., to the paralytic], stand up, take your mat (kravbattoV, krabattos) go to your home” (Mk. 2:10-11; cf. Mt. 9:6; Lk. 5:24). For “mat” (kravbattoV, krabattos) in Mark (2:4, 9), Matthew (9:2, 6) and Luke (5:18) have “bed” (klivnh, klinē); but Luke also has “bed” (klinivdion, klinidion, vv. 19, 24, cf. “what he had been lying on,” v. 25). Mark’s term kravbattoV (krabattos) is defined as “mattress, pallet, the poor man’s bed Mk. 2:4; 6:55”; Matthew’s and Luke’s term klivnh (klinē) as “bed, couch Mk. 4:21; 7:30; Lk. 8:16; 17:34,” and more specifically as “pallet, stretcher on which a sick man was carried . . . prob. not differentiated from ‘bed’ Mt. 9:2, 6; Lk. 5:18)” (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., 2000, s.v. kravbattoV, krabattos, and klivnh, klinē). Luke’s other term, klinivdion (klinidion), is a diminutive of klivnh (klinē), defined as “small bed pallet, stretcher, Lk. 5:19” (BDAG, s.v. klivnh, klinē ). The second century A.D. Greek grammarian Phrynichus, who sought to restore earlier Attic Greek (i.e. the Greek of Athens’ golden age, thought Mark’s term kravbattoV (krabattos) was crude (cf. the Encyclopedia Britannica, 14^th ed., 1929, s.v. Phrynichus [as I remember]). It would be better, perhaps, to call it “main-street Greek” as opposed to “literary” or “university level Greek.”

In any event, the paralytic followed Jesus’ instruction. “And he stood up, and immediately took the mat and went out before all of them” (Mk. 2:12a; cf. Mt. 9:7). In Luke’s version he “went to his home, glorifying God” (v. 25). The three Gospels also note the crowd’s amazement. “Amazement seized all of them, and they glorified God and were filled with awe, saying, ‘We have seen strange things today’ ” (Lk. 5:26; cf. Mk. 2:12b; Mt. 9:8).

For this episode, Oden and Hall have collected comments of several church fathers:

Overview of comments by several Church Fathers: Jesus charged the paralytic to perform an action of which health was the necessary condition (Ambrose). One need not be paralyzed bodily, however, to be paralyzed inwardly (Augustine). The healing of body and soul occurs interconnectedly (Clement of Alexandria). The ministry of forgiveness is not the exercise of an independent power or right but points to God’s own saving work (Ambrose). The administration of forgiveness, which according to the scribes is the office of God alone, acutely raised the question of Jesus’ identity. Being God incarnate, of the same nature as God, he had authority on earth to act as God (Chrysostom). If Christ forgives sins, he must be truly God, for no one can forgive sins but God (Irenaeus, Novatian). (op. cit., p. 27)

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net