Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Mark 2:10
But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)
10. that ye may know ] “By doing that which is capable of being put to the proof, I will vindicate My right and power to do that which, in its very nature, is incapable of being proved.”
the Son of man ] This is the first time this title occurs in St Mark, where we find it 14 times. This title is never applied by the writers of the Gospels themselves to the Eternal Son of God. Whenever it occurs, it is so applied by our Lord, and no other. There are only three exceptions to this rule, (1) where the title is used by Stephen (Act 7:56), and (2) by St John (Rev 1:13; Rev 14:14). During, however, the period of His sojourn here on earth, there was no title our Lord was pleased so often and so constantly to apply to Himself. Son of a man He was not. Son of Man he was. The word used in the original for “man” implies human being, and the expression denotes that He who was the Son of God from all Eternity became the “Son of Man” in time, the second Adam, the second Head of our race, the crown of our humanity. For the expression in the O.T. see Dan 7:13.
on earth ] This power is not exercised, as ye think, only in heaven by God, but also by the Son of Man on earth.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
10. But that ye may know that theSon of man hath power on earth to forgive sinsthat forgivingpower dwells in the Person of this Man, and is exercised by Him whileon this earth and going out and in with you.
(he saith to the sick of thepalsy),
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
But that ye may know that the son of man,…. Meaning himself, who was really man, and the true Messiah, in which sense this phrase had been used in the writings of the Old Testament; see
Ps 80:17, and though by reason of his outward form; and mean appearance, he might be thought by them to be but a mere man, and had no right, nor authority, to say what he had; in order to convince them; he affirms, that he
hath power on earth to forgive sins. As there is an emphasis lies on the phrase, “the son of man”, suggesting, that his being so was no contradiction to his deity, nor any hindrance to the exertion of his power; so there is another on those words, “upon earth”; intimating, that though he was upon earth, in a very low estate, in a state of humiliation, yet he had the same power to forgive sin as in heaven; his humbling himself in human nature did not strip him of his perfections, power, and prerogative as God: and if he had power on earth to forgive sin, there can be no room to doubt of it now he is in heaven; since as mediator, he is “exalted to be a prince, and a Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins”, Ac 5:31, And that it might appear he had such a power on earth,
he saith to the sick of the palsy; turning to, and addressing him in the following words, with great majesty, authority, and power;
[See comments on Mt 9:6].
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
That ye may know ( ). The scribes could have said either of the alternatives in verse 9 with equal futility. Jesus could say either with equal effectiveness. In fact Jesus chose the harder first, the forgiveness which they could not see. So he now performs the miracle of healing which all could see, that all could know that (the Son of Man, Christ’s favourite designation of himself, a claim to be the Messiah in terms that could not be easily attacked) he really had the authority and power () to forgive sins. He has the right and power here on earth to forgive sins, here and now without waiting for the day of judgment.
He saith to the sick of the palsy (). This remarkable parenthesis in the middle of the sentence occurs also in Mt 9:6 and Lu 5:24, proof that both Matthew and Luke followed Mark’s narrative. It is inconceivable that all three writers should independently have injected the same parenthesis at the same place.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Power [] ; or better, authority, as Rev., in margin. The word is derived from exesti, it is permitted or lawful. It combines the ideas of right and might. Authority or right is the dominant meaning in the New Testament.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “But that ye may know,” (hina de eidete) “But in order that (for the purpose that) you all may know, perceive, or realize,” Pro 1:20-22; Joh 3:2.
2) “That the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins,” (hoti eksousian echei ho huios tou anthropou aphienai hamartias epi tes ges) “That the Son of man, a term used 8 times by Jesus of Himself, (messianic heir) has authority on earth to pardon or forgive sins;- That you may know who Heb-is, by His power over this paralytic, Joh 20:31.
3) He saith to the sick of the palsy (legei to paralutiko) “He says to (directly) the paralytic,” the palsied man yet on his soft, portable mattress, bed, to this humanly incurable man, to do three things:
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
“But so that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins,” he says to the paralytic, “I say to you, arise. Take up your bed and go to your house.” ’
This is a central verse of the passage for it contains the essential message that this account is all about. The sudden switch in subject in the middle of the verse should be noted. It has caused some to see the original account as having been interfered with in one way or the other. But it is difficult to see how Mark could have got over his point so personally and yet so succintly, without using this method. It is in fact dramatic. Jesus makes His solemn declaration to the Scribes and then instantly speaks to the man, all in one breath, closely connecting the two. The repetition of ‘He says to the paralytic,’ is not a simple repetition but Mark’s deliberate contrast of what He says in Mar 2:5 with what He says in Mar 2:10. The repetition draws attention to the contrast. The point is brought home. The purity of the Greek takes second place.
His new claim is startling. Now He has moved from ambiguity to clarity. ‘So that you may know that the Son of Man has authoritative power on earth to forgive sins.’ He is claiming that He has the special authority to forgive sins! ‘Forgive’ is in the present infinitive, ‘to go on forgiving sins’ as a personal activity. And we notice that the words are spoken directly to the Rabbis. It is they whose thoughts He is challenging.
We cannot hide from the fact here that Jesus has deliberately ‘provoked’ this incident. In it we come to a high point in His claim to authority. He has revealed His authority in the calling if His disciples. He has revealed His authority in His teaching. He has revealed His authority in casting out evil spirits. And He has even more underlined His authority it touching a man who was unclean, and healing him instead of being made unclean Himself. But now He is lifting His claim to authority to a higher plain, to the plain of divine forgiveness
But we note first the title under which He claims the right to forgive sins. He does so as ‘the Son of Man’. Some have tried to make this mean simply ‘man’ on the basis of the Aramaic, but Mark was an Aramaic speaker and yet he translated it as ‘the Son of Man’, treating it as a title and making an unambiguous connection with the ideas that lie behind that term. It is significant that in the Gospels the term is only ever used on the lips of Jesus (Mar 8:31; Luk 24:7; and Joh 12:34 are not really exceptions for they are referring to what Jesus actually said), and in the New Testament only ever referred to Jesus. Thus there are no good grounds for denying these words to Jesus (some have tried to suggest that they are Mark’s explanation to his readers, as though ‘you’ was addressed to the readers, but this is not the style of the Gospels).
He had begun to develop the term ‘Son of Man’ from the moment of His baptism. His first use of it was to Nathaniel at his call following Jesus’ baptism, where He spoke of angels ascending and descending on the Son of Man (Joh 1:51). He then used it to Nicodemus with clear heavenly connections, ‘No man has ascended into Heaven but He Who descended out of Heaven, even the Son of Man’ (Joh 3:13). Thus according to John the Son of Man is closely connected with Heaven and has His source in Heaven right from the beginning.
We may well ask, Why does Jesus portray Himself as the ‘Son of Man’?
The title Christ (Messiah) had become connected with the idea of a revolutionary leader who would rally the people against the Romans, but this was not how Jesus wanted people to see Him. That was why, once His disciples had recognised Him for what He was, as ‘the Christ’, He re-educated them into recognising what being ‘the Christ’ involved in terms of ‘the Son of Man’ (Mar 8:29-31). Once He had been crucified His Messiahship could be openly declared (Act 2:36), but before that it was better veiled. Thus once the term ‘Christ’ could be used openly after the resurrection, the term ‘Son of Man’ fell into disuse following its final use (and its only use apart from on the lips of Jesus) by Stephen in Act 7:56 of ‘the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God’, where it again signified a triumphant figure in glory. Apart, that is, from in the Book of Revelation, where it is used of the glorious heavenly figure that John meets on ‘the Lord’s Day’ (Mar 1:10-20), and of the fearsome figure who initiates the judgment in Rev 14:14-16. It is thus not used in any of the New Testament letters.
The phrase Son of Man could hold a variety of meanings:
‘b7 In the Old Testament it regularly parallels ‘man’ as a synonym (e.g. Psa 8:4). Thus by it Jesus was holding Himself out as being true man.
It is used by God to Ezekiel stressing that he, Ezekiel, is but a man, indicating his humble place when faced with God.
‘b7 It is used in Dan 7:13 of Israel and its King in contrast to the nation Beasts and their kings, and of one who comes as a representative of Israel before God’s throne to receive universal power.
‘b7 It is used, in apocalyptic literature, of Enoch in a heavenly ministry, spoken to as “you, son of man”.
‘b7 Rabbinic literature also later identified the son of man in Dan 7:13 with the Messiah.
The phrase, therefore, stressed both humiliation and glory, and was not open to being politically manipulated, while at the same time bringing out Jesus’ role as the representative of mankind. It was precisely because as Man He was the mediator between God and men (1Ti 2:5) that He could pronounce the forgiveness of sins.
The passage in Daniel deserves special mention in this regard. There Israel as God’s people are compared with the nations round about who are described as ‘beasts’ and as behaving in beastly fashion. Israel alone (seen in its ideal form as obedient to God) is truly human ‘like a son of man’, for when true to God His people behave like moral human beings. Because of this the people of God (and by inference their ruler) are subjected to suffering under the beasts (see especially Dan 7:25) until the end of the age. Then comes ‘one like to a son of man’ with the clouds of Heaven to the throne of God, to receive power and glory and universal rule (Mar 7:13). He is the representative of ‘the people of the saints of the Most High’ (Mar 7:27). While the son of man is certainly true Israel, the very vivid portrayal in Daniel requires that they approach God in the form of a representative, their king, in the same way as the beasts represented the nations and their kings.
So we may sum up by saying that the phrase ‘Son of Man’ in Daniel represents One who suffers in weakness at the hands of brutish man, followed by a triumphant entry into the presence of God to receive power and glory. Jesus Who saw Himself as the Servant of Yahweh of Isaiah used the title as summing up Israel in Himself as the Suffering Servant.
The Special Use of Son of Man in Mark
The Synoptic Gospels in general reveal Jesus as using the title in all kinds of situations. In them (apart from in Mark) there is the connection to the Son of Man as signifying primarily a true human, which is as common in them as its use of the heavenly Son of Man, but that is not so in Mark. Mark deliberately selects sayings of Jesus which bring out what to him is the essence of Jesus’ claim to be the ‘Son of Man’ and connect with his own aim to present the Son of God.
‘b7 ‘The Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins’ (Mar 2:10) (i.e. on earth as well as in Heaven).
‘The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath’ (Mar 2:28). He has authority to pronounce on God’s ordinances.
‘b7 ‘It is necessary for the Son of Man to suffer – and rise again’ (Mar 8:31; Mar 9:12; Mar 9:31: Mar 10:33; Mar 14:21) – because the son of man in Daniel suffers and then rises to the throne of God, and because only so can He give His life as a ransom for many. Notice the constant repetition of these ideas throughout. This is His destiny and is now His constant theme and the disciples must be made to understand the two sides that there are to it.
‘b7 The Son of Man will give His life a ransom for many (Mar 10:45).
The Son of Man will take His seat at the right hand of God and will come on the clouds of heaven, in the glory of the Father, with the holy angels (Mar 8:38; Mar 14:62). (This directly links Jesus with Dan 7:13).
So to those who would see it Jesus, by this title, was declaring Himself to be here with heavenly authority, for the purpose of suffering and rising again, so that He may ransom men for Himself, with the purpose of then receiving power and authority, and finally coming in the glory of the Father.
Here in Mar 2:10 Jesus represents Himself as the Son of Man Who has authority on earth to forgive sins. This was clearly a claim to special authority and power and by implication connected Him equally with Heaven (the emphasis on ‘on earth’ indicates a contrast with Heaven), and with earth, the latter as the place to which He had come and where He now exercised His heavenly authority. It made clear that as a result of His coming forgiveness was now here to be received through Him while on earth. Yet its usage in the third person left the Rabbis and the disciples to consider who exactly He was speaking about.
‘Power (authority) on earth to forgive sins.’ This is clear and unambiguous. It is a claim that this ‘Son of Man’ can act directly in the forgiveness of sins while on earth. And as the Rabbis had so clearly indicated, this demonstrated His divine nature, which is what Mark wants to bring out. To others He would give the authority to declare sins forgiven (‘he whose sins you shall forgive, shall have been forgiven’ – Joh 20:23), but He alone could actually and personally, as the Judge and Redeemer in union with His Father, forgive sins.
‘So that you may know –.’ His act of healing will demonstrate that what He has said is not blasphemy. If He were a blasphemer God would not hear Him, especially in the context of His blasphemy. Thus if the man really is healed it can only demonstrate that God is pleased with what He has said, and that He is therefore His ‘beloved Son in Whom He is well pleased’ (Mar 1:11), and does have this power that He has claimed.
‘He says to the paralytic, “I say to you, arise. Take up your mattress and go to your house.” ’ Jesus then turned to the paralytic and bid him stand up, pick up his mattress and go home. And to the amazement of all he did so.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
10 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)
Ver. 10. Hath power on earth ] Christus iure divino omnia faciebat, non iniusta aliqua virtute ac tyrannica. Christ did all in his Father’s right, and not of necessity.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
know = see. App-133.
the Son of man. See App-98. Thus setting forth His Person, which is the subject of this second period. See P. 1383; and App-119. Compare Mat 8:20. The first occurrence of this title in Mark. Compare the last (Mar 14:62).
power = authority. App-172.
on. Greek. epi. App-104.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Son of man
(See Scofield “Mat 8:20”)
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
Dan 7:13, Dan 7:14, Mat 9:6-8, Mat 16:13, Joh 5:20-27, Act 5:31, 1Ti 1:13-16
Reciprocal: Psa 103:3 – forgiveth Mar 2:5 – he said
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1
Jesus demonstrated his power to perform miracles of the invisible kind by doing the visible. He told the palsied man to arise and carry his bed.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Jesus chose to do what they considered harder to show that He could also do what they considered easier.
"He did the miracle which they could see that they might know that he had done the other one that they could not see." [Note: A. M. Hunter, The Gospel According to Saint Mark, p. 38.]
This is Mark’s first use of the title "Son of Man." He used it 14 times (cf. Mar 2:28; Mar 8:31; Mar 8:38; Mar 9:9; Mar 9:12; Mar 9:31; Mar 10:33; Mar 10:45; Mar 13:26; Mar 14:21 [twice], 41, 62). Scholars have debated the meaning of this title, but the best evidence points to Jesus meaning that He was the divine Messiah, the representative man (cf. Dan 7:13-14). [Note: See Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark, pp. 197-98, who also presented four other views.]
"Jesus apparently chose this title for Himself because its use would not immediately associate Him in the thinking of the people with the undesirable connotations which had developed around the common term Messiah. Thus, His use of the term half concealed and half revealed His self-identification as the personal Messiah. While the term was recognized to have Messianic connections, the title Son of man would not force the people to make a premature decision concerning His identity in terms of their usual Messianic expectations. It would enable him to connect His Messianic self-presentation with views more in harmony with His own Person and teaching." [Note: Hiebert, p. 67.]
Jesus used the title "Son of Man" when He spoke of His sufferings and death (Mar 8:31; Mar 9:9-13; Mar 9:31; Mar 10:33; Mar 10:45; Mar 14:21; Mar 14:41). He also used it when speaking of His future return in glory (Mar 8:38; Mar 13:26; Mar 13:32; Mar 14:62). Thus He used this title to blend the concepts of the Suffering Servant and the Messiah in His readers’ minds. It also connected Him with mankind as the Son of Man. Still, He was the man with "authority on earth to forgive sins," the Judge.
Mar 2:10 reads awkwardly. It begins with Jesus apparently addressing the scribes. Without finishing His sentence He turned to the paralytic and spoke to Him (Mar 2:11). Some commentators have concluded that Jesus did not utter the first part of Mar 2:10, but Mark inserted it in the narrative as a statement to his readers. [Note: C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to Saint Mark, p. 100; Wessel, p. 633; Grassmick, pp. 112-13.] Those who hold this view usually point out that Mark did not record Jesus’ revealing Himself as the Son of Man to unbelievers before the Resurrection. [Note: E.g., Lane, pp. 96-98; and G. H. Boobyer, "Mark II, 10a and the Interpretation of the Healing of the Paralytic," Harvard Theological Review 47 (1954):115.] Advocates take Mar 2:28 as another statement by Mark to his readers.
"The purpose of Mark’s commentary is to make the community of believers aware that they have experienced the messianic forgiveness of the Son of Man." [Note: Lane, p. 98.]
However, this type of editorial insertion is unusual in the Synoptics. Perhaps Jesus addressed the scribes and then let His comment to the paralytic be the conclusion of His word to them. [Note: Taylor, p. 197; Hiebert, p. 67.]
Jesus gave the paralytic a threefold command. "Rise" tested his faith. "Take up your pallet" required him to assume responsibility for himself that others had previously shouldered. "Go home" gave him direction that he needed.
"The pronouncement in Mar 2:10 means that the One who has authority to forgive sins in heaven is present in the Son of Man to forgive sins ’on earth.’" [Note: Edwards, p. 223.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
CHAPTER 2:10 (Mar 2:10)
THE SON OF MAN
“The Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins.” Mar 2:10 (R.V.)
WHEN asserting His power to forgive sins, Jesus, for the first time in our Gospel, called Himself the Son of man.
It is a remarkable phrase. The profound reverence which He from the first inspired, restrained all other lips from using it, save only when the first martyr felt such a rush of sympathy from above poured into his soul, that the thought of Christ’s humanity was more moving than that of His deity. So too it is then alone that He is said to be not enthroned in heaven, but standing, “the Son of man, standing on the right hand of God” (Act 7:56). [3]
What then does this title imply? Beyond doubt it is derived from Daniel’s vision: “Behold there came with the clouds of heaven one like unto a Son of man, and He came even to the Ancient of Days” (Dan 7:13). And it was by the bold and unequivocal appropriation of this verse that Jesus brought upon Himself the judgment of the council (Mat 26:64; Mar 14:62).
Now the first impression which the phrase in Daniel produces is that of strong and designed contrast between the Son of man and the Eternal God. We wonder at seeing man “brought nigh” to Deity. Nor may we suppose that to be “like unto a Son of man,” implies only an appearance of manhood. In Daniel the Messiah can be cut off. When Jesus uses the epithet, and even when He quotes the prophecy, He not only resembles a Son of man, He is truly such; He is most frequently “the Son of man,” the pre-eminent, perhaps the only one. [4]
But while the expression intimates a share in the lowliness of human nature, it does not imply a lowly rank among men.
Our Lord often suggested by its use the difference between His circumstances and His dignity. “The Son of man hath not where to lay His head:” “Betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss,” in each of these we feel that the title asserts a claim to different treatment. And in the great verse, God “hath given Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of man,” we discern that although human hands are chosen as fittest to do judgment upon humanity, yet His extraordinary dignity is also taken into account. The title belongs to our Lord’s humiliation, but is far from an additional abasement; it asserts His supremacy over those whom He is not ashamed to call brethren.
We all are sons of men; and Jesus used the phrase when He promised that all manner of sins and blasphemies shall be forgiven to us. But there is a higher sense in which, among thousands of the ignoble, we single out one “real man;” and in this sense, as fulfilling the idea, Jesus was the Second Man. What a difference exists between the loftiest sons of vulgar men, and the Son of our complete humanity, of the race, “of Man.” The pre-eminence even of our best and greatest is fragmentary and incomplete. In their veins runs but a portion of the rich life-blood of the race: but a share of its energy throbs in the greatest bosom. We seldom find the typical thinker in the typical man of action. Originality of purpose and of means are not commonly united. To know all that holiness embraces, we must combine the energies of one saint with the gentler graces of a second and the spiritual insight of a third. There is no man of genius who fails to make himself the child of his nation and his age, so that Shakespeare would be impossible in France, Hugo in Germany, Goethe in England. Two great nations slay their kings and surrender their liberties to military dictators, but Napoleon would have been unendurable to us, and Cromwell ridiculous across the channel.
Large allowances are to be made for the Greek in Plato, the Roman in Epictetus, before we can learn of them. Each and all are the sons of their tribe and century, not of all mankind and all time. But who will point out the Jewish warp in any word or institution of Jesus? In the new man which is after His image there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bondman, freeman, but Christ is all and in all, something of Him represented by each, all of them concentrated in Him. He alone speaks to all men without any foreign accent, and He alone is recognized and understood as widely as the voices of nature, as the sigh of waves and breezes, and the still endurance of the stars. Reading the Gospels, we become aware that four writers of widely different bias and temperament have all found an equally congenial subject, so that each has given a portrait harmonious with the others, and yet unique. It is because the sum total of humanity is in Christ, that no single writer could have told His story.
But now consider what this implies. It demands an example from which lonely women and heroic leaders of action should alike take fire. It demands that He should furnish meditation for sages in the closet, and should found a kingdom more brilliant than those of conquerors. It demands that He should strike out new paths towards new objects, and be supremely original without deviating from what is truly sane and human, for any selfish or cruel or unwholesome joy. It demands the gentleness of a sheep before her shearers, and such burning wrath as seven times over denounced against the hypocrites of Jerusalem woe and the damnation of hell. It demands the sensibilities which made Gethsemane dreadful, and the strength which made Calvary sublime. It demands that when we approach Him we should learn to feel the awe of others worlds, the nearness of God, the sinfulness of sin, the folly of laying up much goods for many years; that life should be made solemn and profound, but yet that it should not be darkened nor depressed unduly; that nature and man should be made dear to us, little children, and sinners who are scorned yet who love much, and lepers who stand afar off — yes, and even the lilies of the field, and the fowls of the air; that He should not be unaware of the silent processes of nature which bears fruit of itself, of sunshine and rain, and the fury of storms and torrents, and the leap of the lightning across all the sky. Thus we can bring to Jesus every anxiety and every hope, for He, and only He, was tempted in all points like unto us. Universality of power, of sympathy, and of influence, is the import of this title which Jesus claims. And that demand Jesus only has satisfied, Who is the Master of Sages, the Friend of sinners, the Man of Sorrows, and the King of kings, the one perfect blossom on the tree of our humanity, the ideal of our nature incarnate, the Second Adam in Whom the fullness of the race is visible. The Second Man is the Lord from Heaven. And this strange and solitary grandeur He foretold, when He took to Himself this title, itself equally strange and solitary, the Son of man.
[3] The exceptions in the Revelation are only apparent. St. John does not call Jesus the Son of man (Joh 1:13), nor see Him, but only the type of Him, standing (Joh 1:6).
[4] And this proves beyond question that He did not merely follow Ezekiel in applying to himself the epithet as if it meant a son among many sons of men, but took the description in Daniel for His own. Ezekiel himself indeed never employs the phrase: he only records it.