Research Notes on Luke 5:17-26
Leading Our Friends to Jesus
Matthew 9:1-8
" Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town. 2 Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven." 3 At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, "This fellow is blaspheming!" 4 Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, "Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? 5 Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'? 6 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…." Then he said to the paralytic, "Get up, take your mat and go home." 7 And the man got up and went home. 8 When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men." (Matthew 9:1-8, NIV)
Mark 2:1-12
" A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that he had come home. 2 So many gathered that there was no room left, not even outside the door, and he preached the word to them. 3 Some men came, bringing to him a paralytic, carried by four of them. 4 Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus and, after digging through it, lowered the mat the paralyzed man was lying on. 5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven." 6 Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7 "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" 8 Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, "Why are you thinking these things? 9 Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and walk'? 10 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…." He said to the paralytic, 11 "I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home." 12 He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, "We have never seen anything like this!"" (Mark 2:1-12, NIV)
See Also…
The Pharisees' guide to total holiness (Paperback)
by William L Coleman (Author)
· Paperback: 147 pages
· Publisher: Bethany House (1982)
· Language: English
· ISBN-10: 0871234726
· ISBN-13: 978-0871234728
Ø
Commentaries
Bible Knowledge Commentary
5:17-26. The healing and forgiving of a paralyzed man was further evidence of Jesus' authority and power to make others ceremonially clean. Luke noted that a number of religious officials were present at the occasion, including some from Jerusalem who perhaps were the most influential. Luke did not portray this healing as happening immediately after the preceding event he had recorded. It is evident that he placed the two accounts side by side as a development in his argument.
The statement, the power (dynamis, "spiritual ability") of the Lord was present for Him to heal the sick, is unique to Luke (cf. Matt. 9:1-8; Mark 2:1-12). Luke used dynamis on several occasions to describe Jesus' healing (cf. Luke 4:36; 6:19; 8:46). A large number of people now accompanied Jesus everywhere because of His works of healing. Thus a group of men who were carrying a paralytic had to take him to the roof of the house, remove some tiles, and let him down in front of Jesus. Jesus linked faith with the miracle (5:20), which was also the case in 7:9; 8:25, 48, 50; 17:19; and 18:42. Presumably the faith of which Jesus spoke (i.e., their faith) also included the paralyzed man (5:20).
Surprisingly Jesus did not immediately heal the man's body; instead, He first forgave his sins. This is extremely important for the argument of this section, for Luke's point was that Jesus had the authority to call disciples, including people (such as Levi) who were not thought of as being righteous (vv. 27-39). The religious leaders immediately began to think that Jesus' words were blasphemy for they rightly associated forgiveness with God (cf. 7:49). Jesus pointed out that the religious leaders were absolutely right. His subsequent healing of the man was incontrovertible proof that He did have the authority . . . to forgive sins and therefore should be accepted as God. Anyone could say, Your sins are forgiven. In that sense it was easier than saying, Get up and walk, for if He did not have the power to heal, all would know it immediately. The result of the forgiveness and the healing was that everyone was amazed (lit., "received amazement") and was full of awe (phobou, "reverential fear, ") realizing that they had seen remarkable things (paradoxa, "things out of the ordinary").[1]
Bible Exposition Commentary
From Guilt to Forgiveness (Luke 5:17–26)
Jesus returned to Capernaum, possibly to Peter's house, and the crowd gathered to see Him heal and to hear Him teach. But a new element was added: some of the official religious leaders from Jerusalem were present to investigate what He was doing. They had every right to do this since it was the responsibility of the elders to prevent false prophets from leading the people astray (Deut. 13; 18:15–22). They had interrogated John the Baptist (John 1:19–34) and now they would examine Jesus of Nazareth.
Since this is the first time the scribes and Pharisees are mentioned in Luke's Gospel, it would be good for us to get acquainted with them. The word Pharisee comes from a Hebrew word that means "to divide, to separate." The scribes and Pharisees probably developed out of the ministry of Ezra, the priest, who taught the Jewish people to obey the Law of Moses and be separate from the heathen nations around them (Ezra 9–10; Neh. 8–9). The great desire of the scribes and Pharisees was to understand and magnify God's Law and apply it in their daily lives.
However, the movement soon became quite legalistic and its leaders laid so many burdens on the people that it was impossible to "serve the Lord with gladness" (Ps. 100:2). Furthermore, many of the Pharisees were hypocrites and did not practice what they preached (see Matt. 15:1–20; 23:1–36). In the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7), Jesus exposed the shallowness of pharisaical religion. He explained that true righteousness is a matter of the heart and not external religious practices alone.
The scribes and Pharisees picked a good time to attend one of our Lord's meetings, because God's power was present in a special way and Jesus would heal a man with palsy. If leprosy illustrates the corruption and defilement of sin, then palsy is a picture of the paralysis that sin produces in a life. But Jesus would do more than heal the man; He would also forgive his sins and teach the crowd a lesson in forgiveness.
The paralytic was unable to come to Jesus himself, but he was fortunate enough to have four friends who were able to get him to Jesus. These four men are examples of how friends ought to minister to one another and help needy sinners come to the Saviour.
To begin with, they had faith that Jesus would heal him (Luke 5:20); and it is faith that God honors. Their love for the man united them in their efforts so that nothing discouraged them, not even the crowd at the door. (How tragic it is when spectators stand in the way of people who want to meet Jesus. Zaccheus would have this problem. See Luke 19:3.) When they could not get in at the door, they went on the roof, removed the tiling, and lowered the man on his mat right in front of the Lord!
Jesus could have simply healed the man and sent him home, but instead, He used the opportunity to teach a lesson about sin and forgiveness. Certainly it was easier to say to the man, "Your sins be forgiven!" than it was to say, "Rise up and walk!" Why? Because nobody could prove whether or not his sins really were forgiven! Jesus took the harder approach and healed the man's body, something everybody in the house could witness.
Was the man's affliction the result of his sin? We do not know, but it is probable (see John 5:1–14). The healing of his body was an outward evidence of the spiritual healing within. Jesus astounded the religious leaders by claiming to have authority both to heal the body and to forgive sins. The people had already acknowledged His authority to teach and to cast out demons (Luke 4:32, 36), but now He claimed authority to forgive sins as well. The scribes and Pharisees could not deny the miracle of healing, but they considered His claim to forgive sins nothing less than blasphemy, for only God can forgive sins. For making that kind of statement, Jesus could be stoned, because He was claiming to be God.
In Luke 5:24, we have the first recorded use of the title Son of man in Luke's Gospel, where it is found twenty-three times. Our Lord's listeners were familiar with this title. It was used of the Prophet Ezekiel over eighty times, and Daniel applied it to the Messiah (Dan. 7:13, 18). "Son of man" was our Lord's favorite name for Himself; this title is found at least eighty-two times in the Gospel record. Occasionally He used the title "Son of God" (Matt. 27:43; Luke 22:70; John 5:25; 9:35; 10:36; 11:4), but "Son of man" was used more. Certainly the Jewish people caught the messianic character of this title, but it also identified Him with the people He came to save (Luke 19:10). Like Ezekiel, the Old Testament "son of man," Jesus "sat where they sat" (Ezek. 3:15).
The healing was immediate and the people glorified God. But even more than receiving healing, the man experienced forgiveness and the start of a whole new life. Our Lord's miracles not only demonstrated His deity and His compassion for needy people, but they also revealed important spiritual lessons about salvation. They were "object lessons" to teach spiritually blind people what God could do for them if only they would believe in His Son. [2]
JFB
17. Pharisees and doctors … sitting by—the highest testimony yet borne to our Lord's growing influence, and the necessity increasingly felt by the ecclesiastics throughout the country of coming to some definite judgment regarding Him.
power of the Lord … present—with Jesus.
to heal them—the sick people.
19. housetop—the flat roof.
through the tiling … before Jesus—(See on Mk 2:2).
24. take up thy couch—"sweet saying! The bed had borne the man; now the man shall bear the bed!" [Bengel].[3]
IVP Bible Background
5:17. Pharisees seem to have been located especially in Jerusalem and Judea; thus the Galileans probably consisted mainly of the other group Luke mentions, the teachers of the law. All Galilean villages would have had scribes schooled in Jewish law, who could execute legal documents and train children in the law of Moses.
5:18–19. The average Capernaum home may have allowed only about fifty persons standing (the span of the largest excavated homes there is eighteen feet). One gained access to the roof by an outside staircase, so these men could reach it unimpeded. The roof of a single-story Palestinian home was sturdy enough to walk on but was normally made of branches and rushes laid over the roof's beams and covered with dried mud; thus one could dig through it.
Luke changes this Palestinian roof structure to the flat roof of interlocking tiles more familiar to his own readers, as preachers today change details when retelling biblical stories to make them relevant to their hearers. For the same reason, Luke does not mention their digging through the roof. The paralytic's "bed" would have been the mat on which he always lay.
5:20–21. Judaism believed that only God could forgive sins, but most Jews allowed that some of God's representatives could speak on God's behalf. Technically, "blasphemy" involved pronouncing the divine name or perhaps inviting people to follow other gods; less technically, it had to involve at least dishonoring God. Strictly speaking, therefore, these legal scholars are mistaken in interpreting Jesus' words as blasphemy, even by their own rules.
5:22–26. Some Jewish teachers accepted miracles as verification that a teacher was truly God's representative; others did not regard miracles as sufficient proof if they disagreed with that teacher's interpretation of Scripture.[4]
New Bible Commentary
5:17–26 Jesus' authority to forgive sins (see Mt. 9:1–8; Mk. 2:1–12). The presence of Pharisees and teachers of the law at the beginning of the story prepares the reader to expect a hostile reaction to Jesus. The Pharisees were a religious party who placed great stress on strict observance of the law and the minute detailed regulations which had subsequently been added to it and were taught especially by the teachers of the law. These were a professional class of lawyers and teachers who generally belonged to the Pharisaic party. Luke describes the flat roof of the house as being covered with tiles (a form of construction familiar to his Greek readers), whereas Mark implies that it was made of hardened mud and sticks. Jesus did not heal the paralysed man immediately but said that his sins were (there and then) forgiven. This may possibly imply that the man thought that his illness was a punishment for some particular sin; it certainly does not mean that illness or disaster is always a punishment for sin (see 13:1–5). A prophet or priest could forgive sins in the name of God. The question was whether Jesus had the prophetic authority to do so; if not, he was falsely claiming to act on behalf of God. In fact Jesus claimed the higher authority of the Son of Man who is associated with God's final judgment on mankind (cf. Dn. 7:9–22; Lk. 9:26; 12:8–9). His response was to give indirect proof of this authority by showing that he also possessed divine authority to heal (17). Performance of the visible act should have convinced his watchers that he also possessed authority for the invisible, and therefore unprovable, act.[5]
Teacher's Commentary
These chapters cover what is often called Jesus' early Galilean ministry. Galilee was Jesus' home province. It was not technically Jewish, as was Judea, but contained a large Jewish population. Most of Jesus' ministry was focused near the Sea of Galilee, where Peter and James and John had labored as fishermen.
Strikingly, the Sermon on the Mount, the Transfiguration, and 25 of Jesus' 35 recorded miracles took place in Galilee.
The Jews of Judea, however, looked on Galileans with some contempt. They had a rude accent, and were not considered sophisticated in matters of religion.
This early Galilean ministry took place when Jesus was introducing His teaching and Himself. The later Galilean ministry is associated with hardening opposition.
è Judging. Luke, Paul, and James each dealt with "judging." They called on us to critically evaluate ourselves, but not others. According to James, passing judgment on others is playing God: "There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?" (James 4:12) Yes, the church is to discipline those who openly and habitually sin. But there is no room in our faith for a critical attitude or judging of others' beliefs, motives, and convictions. We are to give each other the freedom to be responsible to God.[6]
Wiersbe's Expository Outlines
Why was the crowd so large that it almost kept needy people from coming to Jesus? Many people were spectators who just came to watch; others wanted to hear the Word of God; and some were there to listen and criticize. The four men are to be commended for their faith and determination. They took the paralytic up the outside stairway to the roof, removed the thatching and tiles, and lowered him before Jesus. (The Gk. word translated "tiling" gives us our English word "ceramic.") It was easy to repair the roof so that no permanent damage was done. What a privilege to be a part of a miracle! It was worth all the effort!
Of course, it is much easier to say "your sins be forgiven" because nobody can prove that it did not happen. So, Jesus gave the scribes and Pharisees something visible and healed the man instantly. It is possible that the man's condition was the result of his sin (John 5:14). What healing is to the body, forgiveness is to the soul (Ps. 103:1–3). In claiming to forgive sins, Jesus was claiming to be God; His critics knew this and accused Him of blasphemy.[7]
Word Pictures (Robertson)
Luke 5:17
That (και [kai]). Use of και [kai]=ὁτι [hoti] (that) like the Hebrew wav [wāw; ו], though found in Greek also. He (αὐτος [autos]). Luke sometimes has αὐτος [autos] in the nominative as unemphatic "he" as here, not "he himself." Was teaching (ἠν διδασκων [ēn didaskōn]). Periphrastic imperfect again like our English idiom. Were sitting by (ἠσαν καθημενοι [ēsan kathēmenoi]). Periphrastic imperfect again. There is no "by" in the Greek. Doctors of the law (νομοδιδασκαλοι [nomodidaskaloi]). A compound word formed after analogy of ἱεροδιδασκαλος [hierodidaskalos], but not found outside of the N.T. and ecclesiastical writers, one of the very few words apparently N.T. in usage. It appears here and Acts 5:34 and I Tim. 1:7. It is not likely that Luke and Paul made the word, but they simply used the term already in current use to describe teachers and interpreters of the law. Our word "doctor" is Latin for "teacher." These "teachers of the law" are called elsewhere in the Gospels "scribes" (γραμματεις [grammateis]) as in Matthew and Mark (see on Matt. 5:20; 23:34) and Luke 5:21; 19:47; 21:1; 22:2. Luke also employs νομικος [nomikos] (one skilled in the law, νομος [nomos]) as in 10:25. One thinks of our LL.D. (Doctors of Civil and Canon Law), for both were combined in Jewish law. They were usually Pharisees (mentioned here for the first time in Luke) for which see on Matt. 3:7, 20. Luke will often speak of the Pharisees hereafter. Not all the "Pharisees" were "teachers of the law" so that both terms often occur together as in verse 21 where Luke has separate articles (οἱ γραμματεις και οἱ Φαρισαιοι [hoi grammateis kai hoi Pharisaioi]), distinguishing between them, though one article may occur as in Matt. 5:20 or no article as here in verse 17. Luke alone mentions the presence here of these Pharisees and doctors of the law "which were come" (οἱ ἠσαν ἐληλυθοτες [hoi ēsan elēluthotes], periphrastic past perfect active, had come). Out of every village of Galilee and Judea and Jerusalem (ἐκ πασης κωμης της Γαλιλαιας και Ἰουδαιας και Ἰερουσαλημ [ek pasēs kōmēs tēs Galilaias kai Ioudaias kai Ierousalēm]). Edersheim (Jewish Social Life) observes that the Jews distinguished Jerusalem as a separate district in Judea. Plummer considers it hyperbole in Luke to use "every village." But one must recall that Jesus had already made one tour of Galilee which stirred the Pharisees and rabbis to active opposition. Judea had already been aroused and Jerusalem was the headquarters of the definite campaign now organized against Jesus. One must bear in mind that John 4:1–4 shows that Jesus had already left Jerusalem and Judea because of the jealousy of the Pharisees. They are here on purpose to find fault and to make charges against Jesus. One must not forget that there were many kinds of Pharisees and that not all of them were as bad as these legalistic and punctilious hypocrites who deserved the indictment and exposure of Christ in Matt. 23. Paul himself is a specimen of the finer type of Pharisee which, however, developed into the persecuting fanatic till Jesus changed his whole life. The power of the Lord was with him to heal (δυναμις Κυριου ἠν εἰς το ἰασθαι αὐτον [dunamis Kuriou ēn eis to iāsthai auton]). So the best texts. It is neat Greek, but awkward English: "Then was the power of the Lord for the healing as to him (Jesus)." Here Κυριου [Kuriou] refers to Jehovah. Δυναμις [Dunamis] (dynamite) is one of the common words for "miracles" (δυναμεις [dunameis]). What Luke means is that Jesus had the power of the Lord God to heal with. He does not mean that this power was intermittent. He simply calls attention to its presence with Jesus on this occasion.
Luke 5:18
That was palsied (ὁς ἠν παραλελυμενος [hos ēn paralelumenos]). Periphrastic past perfect passive where Mark 2:3 and Matt. 9:2 have παραλυτικον [paralutikon] (our paralytic). Luke's phrase is the technical medical term (Hippocrates, Galen, etc.) rather than Mark's vernacular word (Ramsay, Luke the Physician, pp. 57f.). They sought (ἐζητουν [ezētoun]). Conative imperfect.
Luke 5:19
By what way they might bring him in (ποιας εἰς ἐνεγκωσιν αὐτον [poias eis enegkōsin auton]). Deliberative subjunctive of the direct question retained in the indirect. The housetop (το δωμα [to dōma]). Very old word. The flat roof of Jewish houses was usually reached by outside stairway. Cf. Acts 10:9 where Peter went for meditation. Through the tiles (δια των κεραμων [dia tōn keramōn]). Common and old word for the tile roof. Mark 2:4 speaks of digging a hole in this tile roof. Let him down (καθηκαν αὐτον [kathēkan auton]). First aorist (k aorist) effective active of καθιημι [kathiēmi], common verb. Mark 2:4 has historical present χαλωσι [chalōsi], the verb used by Jesus to Peter and in Peter's reply (Luke 5:4f.). With his couch (συν τῳ κλινιδιῳ [sun tōi klinidiōi]). Also in verse 24. Diminutive of κλινη [klinē] (verse 18) occurring in Plutarch and Koiné writers. Mark 2:4 has κραβαττον [krabatton] (pallet). It doubtless was a pallet on which the paralytic lay. Into the midst before Jesus (εἰς το μεσον ἐμπροσθεν του Ἰησου [eis to meson emprosthen tou Iēsou]). The four friends had succeeded, probably each holding a rope to a corner of the pallet. It was a moment of triumph over difficulties and surprise to all in the house (Peter's apparently, Mark 2:1).
Luke 5:20
Their faith (την πιστιν αὐτων [tēn pistin autōn]). In all three Gospels. Man (ἀνθρωπε [anthrōpe]). Mark and Matthew have "child" or "Son" (τεκνον [teknon]). Are forgiven (ἀφεωνται [apheōntai]). This Doric form of the perfect passive indicative is for the Attic ἀφεινται [apheintai]. It appears also in Luke 5:23; 7:47, 48; John 20:23; I John 2:12. Mark 2:6 and Matt. 9:2 have the present passive ἀφιενται [aphientai]. Possibly this man's malady was due to his sin as is sometimes true (John 5:14). The man had faith along with that of the four, but he was still a paralytic when Jesus forgave his sins.
Luke 5:21
But God alone (εἰ μη μονος ὁ θεος [ei mē monos ho theos]). Mark has εἱς [heis] (one) instead of μονος [monos] (alone).
Luke 5:22
Perceiving (ἐπιγνους [epignous]). Same form (second aorist active participle of ἐπιγινωσκω [epiginōskō], common verb for knowing fully) in Mark 2:8. Reason ye (διαλογιζεσθε [dialogizesthe]) as in Mark 2:8. Matt. 9:4 has ἐνθυμεισθε [enthumeisthe].
Luke 5:24
He saith unto him that was palsied (εἰπεν τῳ παραλελυμενῳ [eipen tōi paralelumenōi]). This same parenthesis right in the midst of the words of Jesus is in Mark 2:11 and Matt. 9:6, conclusive proof of interrelation between these documents. The words of Jesus are quoted practically alike in all three Gospels, the same purpose also ἱνα εἰδητε [hina eidēte] (second perfect active subjunctive).
Luke 5:25
Whereon he lay (ἐφ̓ ὁ κατεκειτο [eph‚ ho katekeito]). Imperfect, upon which he had been lying down. Luke uses this phrase instead of repeating κλινιδιον [klinidion] (verse 24). Glorifying God (δοξαζων τον θεον [doxazōn ton theon]). As one can well imagine.
Luke 5:26
Amazement (ἐκστασις [ekstasis]). Something out of its place, as the mind. Here the people were almost beside themselves as we say with the same idiom. See on Mark 5:42. So they kept glorifying God (imperfect tense, ἐδοξαζον [edoxazon]) and at the same time "were filled with fear" (ἐπλησθησαν φοβου [eplēsthēsan phobou], aorist passive). Strange things (παραδοξα [paradoxa]). Our very word paradox, contrary to (παρα [para]) received opinion (δοξα [doxa]). Plato, Xenophon, and Polybius use it. Here alone in the N.T. [8]
Word Studies (Vincent)
17–26. Compare Mark 2:1–12.
17. He was teaching. The pronoun has a slightly emphatic force: he as distinguished from the Pharisees and teachers of the law.
Doctors of the law (νομοδιδάσκαλοι). Only in Luke and 1 Tim. 1:7. Luke often uses νομικὸς, conversant with the law, but in the other word the element of teaching is emphasized, probably in intentional contrast with Christ's teaching.
Judaea and Jerusalem. The Rabbinical writers divided Judaea proper into three parts — mountain, sea-shore, and valley — Jerusalem being regarded as a separate district. "Only one intimately acquainted with the state of matters at the time, would, with the Rabbis, have distinguished Jerusalem as a district separate from all the rest of Judaea, as Luke markedly does on several occasions (Acts 1:8; 10:39)" (Edersheim, "Jewish Social Life").
Was present to heal them. The A. V. follows the reading, αὐτούς, them; i.e., the sufferers who were present, referring back to ver. 15. The best texts, however, read αὐτόν, him, referring to Christ, and meaning was present that he should heal; i.e., in aid of his healing. So Rev.
18. Taken with a palsy (παραλελυμένος). Rev., more neatly, palsied. Whenever Luke mentions this disease, he uses the verb and not the adjective παραλυτικός, paralytic (as Matt. 4:24; 8:6; Mark 2:3–10; compare Acts 8:7; 9:33); his usage in this respect being in strict accord with that of medical writers.
19. Tiles. Wyc. has sclattis, slates.
Couch (κλινιδίῳ). Luke uses four words for the beds of the sick: κλίνη, as ver. 18, the general word for a bed or couch; κπάββατος (Acts 5:15; 9:33), a rude pallet (see on Mark 2:4); κλινίδιον, a small couch or litter, as here, a couch so light that a woman could lift and carry it away. Thus, in the "Lysistrata" of Aristophanes, 916, Myrrine says: "Come now, let me carry our couch" (κλινίδιον). The fourth term, κλινάριον (Acts 5:15), cannot be accurately distinguished from the last. The last two are peculiar to Luke.
Into the midst before Jesus. See on Mark 2:4.
21. To reason. See on Mark 2:6. The words who is this that speaketh blasphemy, form an iambic verse in the Greek.
22. Perceived. See on Mark 2:8.
23. Walk (περιπάτει). Lit., walk about.
24. Unto thee (σοὶ). Standing first for emphasis. Luke emphasizes the direct address to the man: unto thee I say, in contrast with the apparently less direct, thy sins be forgiven thee. In Jesus' mind the connection between the sins and the man's personal condition was assumed; now he brings out the personal side of the connection. In forgiving the man's sins he had healed him radically. The command to rise and walk was of the same piece.
26. They were all amazed (ἔκστασις ἔλαβεν ἅπαντας). Lit., amazement took hold on all, as Rev. On ἔκστασις, amazement, see on Mark 5:42.
Strange things (παράδοξα). From παρά, contrary to, and δόξα, opinion. Something contrary to received opinion, and hence strange. Compare the English paradox. Only here in New Testament.[9]
Tiles
LN
6.224 κέραμος, ου m: a thin slab or bent piece of baked clay—'tile, roof tile.' διὰ τῶν κεράμων καθῆκαν αὐτόν 'they let him down through the roof tiles' Lk 5.19.[10]
Enhanced Strongs
2766 κέραμος [keramos /ker·am·os/] n m. Probably from the base of 2767 (through the idea of mixing clay and water); GK 3041; AV translates as "tiling" once. 1 clay, potter's earth. 2 anything made of clay, earthen ware. 3 a roofing tile. 3a the roof itself. 3b the phrase "through the roof", means through the door in the roof to which a ladder or stairway led up from the street (according to the Rabbis distinguish two ways of entering a house, "the way through the door" and "the way through the roof". Additional Information: For synonyms see entry 3396, mignumi.See entry 5858 for comparison of synonyms. [11]
Pharisees
Louw-Nida
11.49 Φαρισαῖος, ου m: a member of an important religious and political Jewish party at the time of Jesus and the apostles. The Pharisees constituted a significantly larger group than the Sadducees (see 11.48) and differed with them on certain doctrines and patterns of behavior. The Pharisees were strict and jealous adherents to the laws of the OT and to numerous additional traditions—'Pharisee.' διὰ τί ἡμεῖς καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι νηστεύομεν πολλά; 'why is it that we and the Pharisees fast often?' Mt 9.14.
Translators have generally found it both wise and necessary to simply transliterate in one form or another Σαδδουκαῖος (11.48) and Φαρισαῖος, but some background information concerning these two parties is particularly important in a glossary; otherwise, certain passages of Scripture become extremely difficult to understand satisfactorily.[12]
IGEL
Φαρισαῖος, ου, ὁ, a Pharisee, Separatist (from phârash, to distinguish), one of a sect who separated themselves from other Jews as affecting superior holiness.
Enhanced Strong's
5330 Φαρισαῖος [Pharisaios /far·is·ah·yos/] n m. Of Hebrew origin cf 6567; TDNT 9:11; TDNTA 1246; GK 5757; 100 occurrences; AV translates as "Pharisee" 100 times. 1 A sect that seems to have started after the Jewish exile. In addition to OT books the Pharisees recognised in oral tradition a standard of belief and life. They sought for distinction and praise by outward observance of external rites and by outward forms of piety, and such as ceremonial washings, fastings, prayers, and alms giving; and, comparatively negligent of genuine piety, they prided themselves on their fancied good works. They held strenuously to a belief in the existence of good and evil angels, and to the expectation of a Messiah; and they cherished the hope that the dead, after a preliminary experience either of reward or of penalty in Hades, would be recalled to life by him, and be requited each according to his individual deeds. In opposition to the usurped dominion of the Herods and the rule of the Romans, they stoutly upheld the theocracy and their country's cause, and possessed great influence with the common people. According to Josephus they numbered more than 6000. They were bitter enemies of Jesus and his cause; and were in turn severely rebuked by him for their avarice, ambition, hollow reliance on outward works, and affection of piety in order to gain popularity.[13]
TDNTA
Pharisaíos [Pharisee]
A. Phariseeism in Judaism.
I. Usage. A common term in the NT and Josephus, usually in the plural, Pharisaíos transcribes an Aramaic word denoting "separated." The Hebrew equivalent, whose root can have both positive and negative nuances, is very rare and does not cover all aspects of Pharisaism. Contemporaries (but not the Pharisees themselves ) seem to use it in a derogatory sense for "sectaries."
II. Pharisaism to the Fall of the Jerusalem Hierarchy.
1. The Origin. The beginnings of Pharisaism are obscure but seem to reach back into the second century B.C.
Possible precursors are a. the Chasidim. The sources, which are sparse, suggest that this group originates under Antiochus Epiphanes (cf. 1 Macc. 2:42). It forms an opposition movement prior to the Maccabean revolt. Its first target is the Jerusalem establishment that is departing from the law. Its main aim seems to be to champion and observe the law within the hierarchy. It thus thinks of itself as the true Israel.
An origin might also be sought b. in the Perushim, whose concern is separation by the law, primarily priestly separation by the sacral law with a view to the cultic validity of priestly acts, but then by extension the sanctification of the people by the everyday application of the law. The Pharisees, of course, are concerned about inner and not merely outer separation, but a priestly movement with holiness as its goal may well have contributed to Pharisaism, particularly in the case of Pharisaic priests. The decisive factor, however, is the ideal of everyday sanctification by the law, as may be seen in the lay dominance that belongs to the very structure of Pharisaism and the denial of any prominence to priests as such.
2. The Pharisaic Societies. Although we have no real data for the B.C. period, it seems that the Pharisees form societies which are oriented to sanctification and distinguished from the rest of Judaism by specific rules. Only on the basis of some such organization can the Pharisees resist the Hasmoneans, and rabbinic references confirm a corporate existence according to rule.
In this regard we find a. the term Chabura, a general term for "union" which suggests the formation of Pharisaic societies.
We also find b. the term Chaberim for members who accept the society statutes.
A third term c. is Chaberuth for the obligations that members accept. These might vary over the years and in different groups but they always include the payment of tithes and the everyday application of sacral law, although with distinction between those who accept only tithing and those who accept full sanctification after a prior course of instruction and the satisfactory passing of a test. The societies are small groups who regard themselves as the true Israel in distinction from the masses who reject the ideal of actualizing sacral law in everyday life, no matter what may be their culture or status. Political, economic, and social factors, however, rule out the sharp restriction of everyday dealings with the masses which is the Pharisaic ideal.
3. Pharisaic Wisdom and Learning.
a. The Chakamim. Pharisaism provides fruitful soil for learning. In postexilic times secular wisdom makes a significant agreement with Israel's faith. It leads believers to see in the law an order of life as well as a plan of salvation. The teachers of wisdom, the chakamim, are aristocrats of the spirit ranking immediately after the priestly and social aristocracy. In the democratic Pharisaic societies they quickly assume positions of leadership. Here they develop, not the doctrine of God, but the themes of anthropology, soteriology, and eschatology which relate believers to both this world and the next. Under their guidance a new faith-world develops which forms the background of the NT. The tension which this development causes with the sacred text of the OT poses a necessary task for scholars which produces scribal learning.
b. The Soferim. This term covers a broad range from literate persons, elementary teachers, secretaries, and temple scribes to students and expositors of the law. When the fusion of law and wisdom takes place, the soferim become virtually identical with the chakamim with the special task of interpreting the law in the light of the new development. Naturally the soferim do not have to be Pharisees. They exist prior to the Pharisaic movement, and there are always non-Pharisaic scribes. Nevertheless, since the Pharisees are diligent students of the law who seek to apply it in everyday life, they inevitably have need of soferim to guide their thought and practice.
4. The Pharisees as a Party.
a. The Hasmoneans. Pharisaism is essentially a trend or movement, and it remains such in the diaspora. In Palestine, however, its concern for legitimacy entails its development as a party, probably as early as the reign of Hyrcanus I (134 B.C.). Opposing the Hasmoneans, the Pharisees seek to replace them with an Aaronite high-priestly family. To this end they even seem to have invoked the aid of the Seleucid Demetrius III Eukairus, but after a brief success they suffer severely at the hands of Jannai when the Syrians withdraw. Under Salome Alexandra (76-67 B.C.) they achieve power and brutally suppress their opponents; the rabbis depict this reign as one of great prosperity. The death of the queen breaks their hegemony, but they retain minority representation on the council. In the ensuing dynastic struggles the Pharisees now seek the end of the prince-priesthood as an invalid innovation. Rejecting the hierocracy, they can lead a religious life without political dependence. They can thus advise the surrender of Jerusalem to Herod I, and after Herod's victory in 37 B.C. they not only survive but maintain the respect of the people (in contrast to Herod).
b. From Herod to the Destruction of the Temple. Herod accepts and even favors the Pharisees, taking care not to wound their religious scruples. In line with their anti-Hasmonean policy, they never champion nationalistic resistance movements aiming at eschatological salvation. They become enmeshed in various palace intrigues, however, and after Herod's death and the banishment of Archelaus, when the Sadducees regain control, they no longer play a normative role. Yet their scribes remain popular as they legalize popular customs and beliefs, and the aristocracy does not attempt any forceful measures against them.
c. The Zealots. Different trends may be seen in Pharisaism, often sharply divided. Thus the Zealots emerge as a radical or particularist wing of Pharisaism under Judas the Galilean, who is distinguished by a love of freedom and an acknowledgment of God alone as Lord. The Zealots quickly attain a following, for they have a predominantly religious rather than political program, and Judas unites scribal learning with his ability as a leader. If on the one side he is the messianic heir-apparent, on the other he is a chakam who seeks the victory of the law and hence eternal freedom in the form of the rule of God. The older Pharisaism resists the Zealot movement but cannot prevent the intrusion of Zealot trains of thought and aspirations.
d. Zadokite Criticism. Qumran shows that Pharisaism is opposed by the older orthodoxy in respect of its detailed rulings and also of its whole interpretation of the law. What is contested is not the applying of the law to life but the placing of Pharisaic rulings as a fence around the law and the resultant according to oral tradition of equal validity with the law and consequent immunity from criticism. The ideal of Pharisaism is a detailed ordering of life which will protect believers against mortal sin and produce fellowship with God through every change and chance of life. The Damascus Document is a Zadokite work which attacks the idea of a fence around the law on the ground that it involves transgression of the law and imposes too heavy burdens on the people by way of false exposition. Similarly Qumran accuses Pharisaism of dissolving the law by scribal misdirection and evasion. An example of such an evasion is the arrangement whereby Hillel supposedly permits a loan to be required even in the year of remission, thereby adopting into sacral law a secular practice which virtually annuls the law.
III. The Victory of Pharisaism.
1. The Fall of the Hierocracy. Except under Salome Alexandra the Pharisees have the role of a minority up to A.D. 70. Their great period comes only with the fa11 of the hierocracy. When the capture of Jerusalem shatters the Sadducean ideal, Pharisaism provides the direction needed for reconstruction. Politically independent, it nurtures community life in the synagogue. The failure of the Zealots clears the way for more moderate leaders such as Jochanan ben Zakkai. Jabneh with its chakamim, which plays no part in the revolt, forms a center for reorganization.
2. The Reconstruction.
a. Religio-Social Change. The chakamim can now apply more fully their own concepts. They enjoy the support of the eastern diaspora. A new court is set up in which the scribes have final authority. The Jabneh academy supplies the leaders, so that power passes from an aristocracy to men of religious and intellectual quality who after a long period of preparation qualify for ordination as rabbis.
b. Inner Reorganization. In inner reorganization the first task is to give the community a uniform basis in religious law. A voice from heaven settles the old dispute between Hillel and Shammai in favor of the former. Excommunication falls on dissenting groups like the Sadducees and Essenes, and full separation from the Samaritans takes place. Pharisaic Hillelites ultimately prevail in Galilee and the dispersion. Steps are taken to suppress speculation, to fix the canon, and to standardize speech, writing, and liturgy. The chakamim had tried to fix the canon earlier, but they now achieve the threefold canon of law, prophets, and writings in debate with the Sadducees, Samaritans, and Jewish Christians. They also standardize the text and achieve a new and more literal translation into Greek. As regards law, they adopt and revise cultic law, make use of written as well as oral tradition, and establish the threefold principle of majority decision, local custom, and normative authority. Exegesis seeks to establish the unity of the written law and oral tradition; rules borrowed from Hellenistic hermeneutics aid in this task, although these conflict with the older and simpler rules illustrated in the expository work of Qumran. An eschatological element remains that anticipates the restoration of the temple and the dawn of the kingdom. The reconstruction is so thorough that it is hard today to gain even a general picture of Judaism prior to the fall of the hierocracy.
IV. Summary. Prior to A.D. 70 Judaism is a multiform phenomenon; after A.D. 70 we see the triumph of one movement with Pharisaism. This movement, previously a minority, acquires such force as to make its impress on worldwide Judaism as a whole. Only much later will opposition arise against it, and even this opposition cannot decisively alter the totality of the new rabbinic Judaism. [R. Meyer, IX, 11-35]
B. The NT.
I. The Synoptic Tradition.
1. The Historical Problem. The NT mentions the Pharisees some 98 or 101 times, mostly in the Synoptics. The Pharisees oppose the Baptist in Mt. 3:7ff. and are a contending party against Jesus in Mk. 10:1ff.; 12:13ff. Quite early they resolve on his death (Mk. 3:6). They incur in return the sharp criticism of Jesus (Mk. 7; Mt. 25). In some sense they represent Judaism as a whole in this regard. Yet the picture is not uniform, for Jesus has friendly relations with many Pharisees (cf. Lk. 7:36; 13:31ff.; Mk. 12:34). Furthermore, the Pharisees, who have little real power, play only a minor role in the actual passion story.
2. Other Parties. Other groups as well as the Pharisees oppose Jesus (cf. the references to the Pharisees and Sadducees in Mt. 16:6, to the leaven of the Pharisees and Herod in Mk. 8:15, and to the question of the Sadducees in Mt. 22:34).
b. We also find mention of the chief priests and elders along with the Pharisees (cf. Mk. 12:1ff.; Mt. 21:23, 45).
c. Frequently the scribes figure in the accounts, and while many scribes are Pharisees, the two groups are not identical (cf. Lk. 11:37ff., 45ff.; Mk. 7:5; Lk. 5:21). In exegetical questions the scribes probably play a leading role, and only incidentally are some of them Pharisees (cf. Mk. 12:35; Mt. 22:41).
d. Mark refers to the Herodians in 3:6; 12:13. These are perhaps political adherents of Herod Antipas, although little is known about them or about their connection with the Pharisees. Matthew and Luke omit the references in view of their lack of interest in the group or its lack of any further relevance.
3. Opposition to the Pharisaic Understanding.
a. The opposition of Jesus to the Pharisees is directed against their legal piety and the resultant practice of the law. Jesus accepts the law (Mt. 5:17) and even gives it a sharper interpretation (5:21ff.). Love of God and neighbor is his criterion, not the law itself or oral tradition. In proclaiming God's will Jesus implicitly sets himself above the law and opposes the oral tradition of Pharisaism (Mk. 7:8-9, 13). Emphasizing detailed rules means abrogating essential demands. Hence the legal practice of Pharisaism amounts to hypocrisy (Mt. 6:1ff.).
b. Rules whereby Pharisaism claims to be the true Israel arouse the particular opposition of Jesus, e.g., strict sabbatarianism (Mk. 2:23ff.), tithing (Lk. 18:12), fasting (Mk. 2: 18ff.), and purifyings (Mk. 7:1ff.). What Jesus seeks is inner, not outer purity (Mk. 7:15).
c. The separation of the Pharisees from the people is also a cause of conflict in view of Jesus' mingling with publicans and sinners. Since he himself enjoys table fellowship with the Pharisees (Lk. 7:36), he incurs heavy criticism on this point (Mk. 2:15ff.), but in return he opposes his saving mission to Pharisaic legalism. Indeed, in the parable of Lk. 18:9ff. he sets aside the subjectively honest concern of the Pharisees to fulfil the law in favor of those who expect nothing from their own works but everything from the divine mercy.
d. Mt. 5:18-19, of course, maintains the infallible validity of the law. The directions in Mt. 23:2-3 do not in themselves contest Pharisaic authority. The attack in Mt. 23:3, 23 is on Pharisaic practice rather than the Pharisaic ideal. The door is thus left open for Jewish Christians to achieve a true Pharisaic legitimacy while rejecting Pharisaic Judaism and even adopting elements from Zadokite criticism.
II. John's Gospel. In John, too, the Pharisees oppose the Baptist (1:19), collide with Jesus over observance of the sabbath (5:1ff.), and resolve to put Jesus to death (7:32). Yet "the Jews" as a whole are more prominent in John (i.e., the intellectual and religious leaders), the Pharisees are now in closer contact with the chief priests (7:32; 11:47), and little account is taken of the distinction between the scribes and Pharisees (cf. Jn. 9). The separation of the Pharisees from the people still plays a role (7:49), but there is no collective judgment on the Pharisees, and in Nicodemus Jn. 3:1-2 portrays a sympathetic Pharisee (cf. 12:42).
III. Acts and Paul.
1. In Acts the Pharisees play no special role in opposition either to Jesus (2:23) or to the infant church (4:1: the Sadducees and priests). Indeed, Gamaliel advocates a tolerant attitude to the church (5:34ff.), and for party reasons the Pharisees on the council defend Paul's innocence (23:6ff.).
2. Paul himself is brought up as a Pharisee (Acts 26:4-5) and studies under Gamaliel (22:3). He alludes to his zeal in striving to fulfil the Pharisaic ideal (Gal. 1:13-14; Phil. 3:5-6). For him, however, this Pharisaic past is of no importance (Phil. 3:7). He nowhere opposes Pharisaism as such. The theological conflict between Christ and legalism subsumes the historical conflict.
C. Early Christian Writings. The sharp rift between Judaism and Christianity means that the Pharisees tend to fade from the picture. The apostolic writings do not mention them. Other works follow the NT tradition. Justin uses the fixed phrase "Pharisees and scribes" (Dialogue 51.2; 76.7). Christian Gnostic texts also reflect hostility to the Pharisees. Irenaeus Against Heresies 4.12.1 claims that Jesus attacks only the Pharisaic law, not the law as such. Jewish Christianity (Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.54.7), however, accepts the authority of the scribes and Pharisees but not their practice (cf. Mt. 23:2-3, 13). The Woes apply to hypocritical Pharisees, not to Pharisees as such (Pseudo-Clementine Homilies 11.29.1-2). Jewish Christians are finally the true Pharisees. [H. F. Weiss, IX, 35-48]
→ katharós, krýptō, nómos, prophḗtēs, Samáreia, Saddoukaíos[14]
Tyndale
PHARISEES Religious sect active in Palestine during the NT period. The Pharisees are consistently depicted in the Gospels as Jesus' antagonists. It is commonly held that the Pharisees represented mainstream Judaism early in the first century and that they were characterized by a variety of morally objectionable features. Accordingly, most Bible dictionaries and similar works of reference depict the Pharisees as greedy, hypocritical, lacking a sense of justice, overly concerned with fulfilling the literal details of the law, and insensitive to the spiritual significance of the OT. These and other characteristics are furthermore viewed as giving shape to Judaism more generally.
There are several problems with this common perception of Pharisaic Judaism. In the first place, the Gospels themselves give some important information that appears inconsistent with this view. Second, the primary documents of rabbinic Judaism (such as the Mishnah, the Talmud, and the Midrashim) are positive and praiseworthy. Third, it has become increasingly clear, especially since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, that prior to ad 70 the Pharisees constituted only a small movement in a highly diversified society; whatever their popularity and influence, they can hardly be taken as representative of Judaism in general.
Origin The origins of the Pharisees are obscure. According to Jewish tradition, Pharisaic (= rabbinic) Judaism can be traced back to Ezra and the beginnings of the scribal movement in the fifth century bc. At the opposite extreme, a few scholars argue that, since there are no explicit references to the Pharisees in historical documents prior to the second century bc, Pharisaism appeared suddenly after the Maccabean revolt (167 bc). Many specialists take the position that perhaps as early as the third century bc one can find evidence of an incipient form of Pharisaism (as in The Wisdom of Joshua [Jesus] ben Sirach, also known as Ecclesiasticus). It may well be, moreover, that the intellectual pursuits associated with the work of the scribes did have something to do with the development of the Pharisees. It is also probable that prior to the Maccabean revolt some distinctive Pharisaic concerns appeared in connection with the development of the Hasidim ("the faithful ones"—traditionalists who opposed Greek influence in Jewish society).
According to a popular and reasonable interpretation, the Hasidim became disillusioned with the Maccabean rulers, whose conduct violated Jewish sensibilities in several respects. Some of the Hasidim separated themselves from the nation and developed into nonconformist sects, such as that of the Essenes. Those who remained tried to exert their influence on Jewish life and developed into the sect of the Pharisees.
The Pharisees no doubt played a significant role in Jewish affairs during the next century, even though at times they had little political clout. By NT times, they were widely recognized as religious leaders. Josephus, who tells us that he belonged to this sect, wrote toward the end of the first century ad that the Pharisees were "extremely influential among the townsfolk; and all prayers and sacred rites of divine worship are performed according to their exposition. This is the great tribute that the inhabitants of the cities, by practicing the highest ideal both in their way of living and in their discourse, have paid to the excellence of the Pharisees" (Antiquities 18.15). We cannot determine whether this description applies to the period before ad 70, but the evidence of the Gospels themselves confirms it to some extent. For example, the parable of the publican and the Pharisee (Lk 18:9–14), while it condemns the Pharisee, makes sense only if we appreciate the role reversal it announces: the wicked publican, not the one generally regarded as righteous, goes home justified.
Basic Characteristics It is not possible to give an accurate characterization of the Pharisees, since scholars disagree sharply concerning their fundamental distinctiveness. Some stress the notion of "separateness," partly on the basis of the supposed etymology of the name (from Hebrew parush, "separated one," though other suggestions have been made). A more carefully nuanced viewpoint calls attention to the Pharisees' concern with ritual purity (cf. Mk 7:1–4). Some of the evidence indicates that the Pharisees wished to apply the priestly rituals to the people generally (this factor may help to explain the relative ease with which the Pharisees adapted to the absence of the temple and its sacrifices after ad 70). Still another position sees the Pharisees as the scholar class. The close connection between them and the scribes (experts in the law) gives credence to this view, as does the fact that much of the later rabbinic literature reflects an intellectual pursuit, particularly in its detailed logical argumentations regarding the meaning and application of the Torah.
These various approaches are not mutually exclusive. Moreover, there appears to be widespread agreement about one theological conviction that was foundational to Pharisaism, namely, their commitment to the notion of a twofold law: the written Torah (the OT, principally the Pentateuch) and the oral Torah (the traditions handed down through many generations of rabbis). This is certainly one feature that distinguished them from the Sadducees (cf. Josephus's Antiquities 13.297-98). The latter accepted only the authority of the books of Moses and argued strongly that the importance that the Pharisees attached to oral traditions represented an unjustifiable innovation. These traditions, which sought to regulate the lives of the people before God, became more and more detailed over the course of time and were eventually brought together and written down as a single document, the Mishnah (dated c. ad 210). Somewhere in its development the view arose that the oral law itself had been given by God to Moses and thus shared divine authority with the Scriptures.
A careful look at the NT helps in understanding that this feature more than anything else explains the nature of the conflict between the Pharisaic viewpoint and the message of the gospel. The apostle Paul, for example, stresses the distinctiveness of his apostolic preaching by contrasting it to "the traditions of the fathers," which he zealously pursued in his youth (Gal 1:14). Especially instructive is the key passage in Mark 7, where it is written that the Pharisees complained to Jesus, "Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with 'unclean' hands?" (v 5, niv). Christ's reply counters their criticism with a serious indictment: "You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men …. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down" (vv 8, 13 ; cf. Mt 15:1–6).
The importance the Pharisees attributed to their interpretations of the law compromised the authority of God's own revelation. To make matters worse, the genius of those interpretations was to distort the doctrine of grace by relaxing the divine standards. The very example used by Jesus in Mark 7:10–12 indicates that a rabbinic regulation—the Corban—made it possible for people to ignore the fifth commandment and feel justified in so doing.
The Pharisaic regulations were numerous and aggravating, but at least they could be fulfilled. Those who followed scrupulously the rabbinic traditions were in danger of concluding that their conduct satisfied God's demands (cf. Paul's description of his own preconversion attitude, Phil 3:6). And a muted sense of one's sin goes hand in hand with a false sense of spiritual security; the need to depend on God's mercy no longer appears crucial. This is, of course, the point of the parable of the publican and the Pharisee (Lk 18:9–14). In contrast, Jesus calls for a much higher righteousness than that of the Pharisees: "Be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect" (Mt 5:48; cf. v 20).
See also Essenes; Jew; Judaism; Sadducees; Talmud; Torah; Tradition; Tradition, Oral.[15]
New Bible Dictionary
PHARISEES
I. History
Reconstructing any Jewish sects (including *Sadducees, *Essenes, *Zealots, *Samaritans, and probably many others) is very difficult. Apart from the Jewish historian, Josephus, all the sources we have are 'travellers' tales' (e.g. Pliny, NH 5.73) and passing references, with the later rabbinic traditions which are of questionable value and strongly influenced by the destruction of the *Temple. All authors are biased, and most modern reconstructions use these sources far too uncritically.
While not presuming his readers to be familiar with the Pharisees, Josephus says nothing about aspects we would find most significant: their origins, doctrines, self-understanding and social structures.
His discussion of Jewish sects is part of his overall purpose to explain the downfall of God's chosen people. He therefore focuses on divine providence, predestination and tree will. Josephus' Pharisees appear to occupy a mediating position between the rigid predestinarianism of the *Essenes and the human freedom asserted by the *Sadducees. He regards them as an attractive, popular and powerful faction, ascetic in lifestyle, concerned to present themselves as rigorists for the Torah. They have a body of additional interpretations and traditions, and religious practises are performed according to their interpretation (see especially Ant. 18.12–17). But he sees their major role as political, claiming they effectively controlled the state from Alexandra Salome (76–67 bce) to Herod. Yet his narratives of this period hardly mention them, and certainly fail to demonstrate their political power. Hence many scholars see Josephus' claims as exaggerated, if not mere propaganda.
Rabbinic traditions say nothing about politics: the concerns are exclusively religious. We cannot assume the terms 'Pharisees', 'sages' or 'rabbis' refer to the group we know as Pharisees. The majority of the earliest traditions focus on purity laws; particularly washing, eating, tithing and festival Sabbath observance. Neusner therefore suggested that the Pharisees saw themselves, though laymen, as the 'kingdom of priests' of Ex. 19:6, observing the legislation relevant to a priest on Temple duty. (Similar motivation and concerns, interestingly, appear in the *Dead Sea Scrolls.) In the NT, too, cultic purity seems to be a major Pharisaic concern.
II. Relationship to other groups
All four gospels link *scribes and Pharisees (Mt. 5:20; 12:38; 15:1; 23; Mk. 2:16; 7:1; Lk. 5:21, 30; 6:7; 7:30; 11:53; 15:2; Jn. 8:3; c/ Acts 23.9). This only indicates that some scribes were Pharisees, and likely from their learning to take leading roles within the movement.
Matthew alone links Pharisees with *Sadducees (3:7; 16:1, 6, 11, 12). They might thus represent the leaders of the people, but generally the evangelists see various combinations of chief priests, elders and scribes in that role. Perhaps these two were seen as most doctrinally distinctive from other strands of Judaism. The opposition between them is important to Josephus and the rabbis; cf. also Acts 23:6–10.
Matthew once links Pharisees with the chief priests (21:45), and in John this combination is the moving force behind the formal opposition to Jesus (7:32, 45; 11:47, 57; 18:3). This might support Josephus' claims that they wielded political power. Although Matthew appears to intend two separate groups, Josephus notes that some priests were themselves Pharisees.
III. Teaching
The problems discussed above make it hard to be certain what was distinctively Pharisaic. Josephus' statements about the Pharisees being 'accurate interpreters of the Law' (e.g. BJ 2.162) must be tempered by his other comments attributing such accuracy to all Jewish sects, especially the priesthood. That they were conservative on some parts of the Law and liberal on others, adding also their own traditions, is neither surprising nor unique to their group. Any claim to be the definitive exponents of the Law would, however, give a cutting edge to Jesus' fierce denunciations.
The only point on which all sources agree is the Pharisees' belief in an afterlife. Josephus appears to contrast their position with Essene dualism: unrighteous souls are punished while the righteous pass into 'other bodies' (BJ 2.163), perhaps at a general resurrection.
IV. Influence
The traditional image of the all-powerful legalistic Pharisee is manifestly incorrect. Claims that they controlled cultic practice are incredible and contradicted by the evidence. However, our sources do suggest a disproportionate influence on society. There is, though, no reason to suppose that they exercised any direct influence in the synagogues or other parts of everyday Jewish life. Josephus, the rabbinic materials and the Gospel of John would also suggest their influence was limited to the environs of Jerusalem, though Mark and Luke locate Pharisees in Galilee(see Lk. 5:17).
An important factor in assessing their influence is the impression given by the synoptic writers that it was the Pharisees who took it upon themselves to vet Jesus' credentials and to seek to destroy his subversive new teaching. Hence they are portrayed as natural authorities in the community of faith, or at least in that part of most interest to the early Christian community. This coheres with both Josephus' report of their claims to 'accuracy' in interpretation, and with what we know of the early life of the erstwhile Pharisee, Paul (Gal. 1:13–14; Phil. 3.5f). In Luke, in particular, they appear to regard Jesus as an equal, even while suffering his biting criticisms. In Acts they appear as a voice of moderation in the *Sanhedrin. But in general 'the Pharisees' quickly became a stereotype for the opponents of Jesus.
Bibliography. See the items listed under *Sadducees; J. Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70, 3 vols., 1971; idem. 'Josephus' Pharisees: A Complete Repertoire', in L. H. Feldman & G. Hata (eds), Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, 1987, pp. 274–292; S. Van Tilborg, The Jewish Leaders in Matthew, 1972; J. Lightstone, 'Sadducees versus Pharisees: The Tan-naitic Sources', in Neusner (ed.), Christianity, Judaism and other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morion Smith at 60, 3, 1975, pp. 206–217.; M. J. Cook, Mark's Treatment of the Jewish leaders, 1978; E. Rivkin, The Hidden Revolution: An Historical Reconstruction of the Pharisees, 1978; R. L. Brawley, 6, 1987; J. T. Sanders, 6, 1987; J. T. Carroll, 'Luke's Portrayal of the Pharisees', CBQ 50, 1988, pp. 604–621; D. B. Gowler, Host, Guest, Enemy and Friend: Portraits of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts, 1991; S. Mason, 6, 1991; idem, 'Chief Priests, Sadducees, Pharisees and Sanhedrin in Acts' in R. J. Bauckham (ed.), The Book of Acts in its Palestinian Setting, 1995. d.r. de l.[16]
Harper
Pharisees (fairʹi-seez), a group of specially observant and influential Jews, mainly in Palestine, from the second century b.c. to the first century a.d. The name is obscure. It may mean 'separate ones' in Hebrew, referring to their observance of ritual purity and tithing, or less probably 'the interpreters,' referring to their unique interpretations of biblical law. The Pharisees are described by two first-century sources, the nt and the historian Josephus, and also by rabbinic literature, which covers a broader period of time. Each literature gives a different account of the Pharisees and modern descriptions differ widely depending on which sources are accepted and how conflicts are resolved. The picture of the Pharisees derived only from the Gospels and formerly accepted as historical, that they were little more than legalists and hypocrites and were culpably blind to Jesus' message, has largely been discredited as early Christian polemic against Jewish and rabbinic leadership. The interpretation of the Pharisees as religious liberals emanated from modern Jewish apologetics and is ill suited to antiquity. Though a comprehensive and secure description of the Pharisees eludes us, some insight can be gained from each of the ancient sources.
According to Josephus: Josephus, a Jewish historian of the first century who wrote for non-Jews in Greek, calls the Pharisees a 'choice [of life]' and a 'philosophy.' He gives some general characteristics of the Pharisees in contrast to the Sadducees and Essenes; he recounts some of the activities and influence of this group; and he mentions occasional influential Pharisees. According to Josephus, the Pharisees were the group most influential with the people, were noted for their accurate and therefore authoritative interpretations of Jewish law, and had their own traditions and way of life to which they were faithful. They had a simple standard of living and cultivated harmonious relations with others. On the issue of free will, a distinguishing factor among Greek philosophies, Josephus places the Pharisees between the Essenes and Sadducees because they accepted the influence of both fate (or providence) and free will on human actions. They believed that the soul survives death and is punished or rewarded with another life. Though Josephus acknowledges the Pharisees' prominence and even claims to be one in his Life, he criticizes their total power over Queen Alexandra (76-67 b.c.), their opposition to other rulers, and their attacks on their enemies. He often refers to their reputation as accurate interpreters of the law, without affirming it himself. Some Pharisees incited opposition to the government, though others worked with the chief priests to keep order. In the first century Josephus says they numbered six thousand.
At no time do we learn how one 'joined' this group and what was required to stay in it. It may have been like a Hellenistic school, teaching a way of life, or a political, social faction competing for recognition and power within Judaism, or a sect separating itself from the parent body. The Pharisees exhibited various tendencies at different times, so they probably changed over the two centuries of their existence as different persons and groups from the Pharisees exercised diverse roles in society.
In the nt: In the nt the Pharisees play the role of Jesus' opponents and are almost always cast in a negative light, because they are presented as proponents of a way of living Jewish life that differed from Jesus' way. They are associated with the scribes alone (in Matt. and Luke) but seldom with the elders, chief priests, and scribes, who are the leaders in Jerusalem. The Pharisees were zealous observers of the law, prominent among the people and especially concerned with ritual purity, tithing food according to ot law, and correct observance of Sabbath. These are typical sectarian interests. They were learned in the law and sometimes contrasted with the Sadducees from whom they differed especially on resurrection (Acts 23:1-8; in Mark 11:18-26 Jesus agrees with the Pharisees against the Sadducees). When Paul wishes to identify his own place in Judaism, he says he is a Pharisee (Phil. 3:5; Acts 23:6). Yet, in the Gospels the Pharisees are condemned as hypocrites (Matt. 23) because they are used as opponents of Jesus. In general, the Gospel writers, who wrote several decades after Jesus, manifest little accurate and consistent knowledge of Jewish leadership and groups from the period before the destruction of the Temple in a.d. 70.
In Rabbinic Literature: Rabbinic literature, which in its present form dates from a.d. 200 and later, contains three types of data. The laws associated with the names of pre-70 Pharisees and with the schools of Shammai and Hillel, first-century Pharisaic leaders, concern ritual purity, tithing, and Sabbath observance, sectarian concerns that also surfaced in the Gospels. These laws may be accurately attributed to them, according to the contemporary scholar J. Neusner. Stories about these Pharisaic leaders present them as authoritative and dominant figures in Jewish society, religion, and politics. But since the rabbis who wrote these stories traced their lineage to the Pharisees, it is likely that they portrayed the Pharisees in their own image two or three centuries later. Another group of rabbinic texts speak of the 'separatists' (Heb. perushim), often presumed to be the Pharisees. But sometimes this term refers to dissidents who are clearly not Pharisees, and sometimes it refers to ascetics. In passages where the Pharisees are contrasted to Sadducees, the Pharisees are scholars who accept the written and oral law. They are the leaders who set the law for Jewish society and the judges who enforce it. Yet this portrait fits the rabbis after a.d. 70 rather than the Pharisees in the Temple period.
Though a full history and description of the Pharisees is impossible, some characteristics are probable. The Pharisees had their own traditions on how to live a life faithful to the Judaism to which they were devoted. Their internal rules were sectarian with an emphasis on ritual purity, food tithes, and Sabbath observances. They were admired by the people and functioned at least some of the time as a social and political force against foreign and hellenized Jewish leaders (i.e., those Jewish leaders who were sympathetic to Greek language and culture). Some or all were learned in the law and some were politically powerful. See also Essenes; Josephus; Parables; Rabbi, Rabboni; Sabbath; Sadducees.
Bibliography
Bowker, J. Jesus and the Pharisees. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1973.
Neusner, Jacob. From Politics to Piety. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1973.
Rivkin, E. The Hidden Revolution. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1978. [17]
Easton
Pharisees — separatists (Heb. persahin, from parash, "to separate"). They were probably the successors of the Assideans (i.e., the "pious"), a party that originated in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes in revolt against his heathenizing policy. The first mention of them is in a description by Josephus of the three sects or schools into which the Jews were divided (B.C. 145). The other two sects were the Essenes and the Sadducees. In the time of our Lord they were the popular party (John 7:48). They were extremely accurate and minute in all matters appertaining to the law of Moses (Matt. 9:14; 23:15; Luke 11:39; 18:12). Paul, when brought before the council of Jerusalem, professed himself a Pharisee (Acts 23:6–8; 26:4, 5).
There was much that was sound in their creed, yet their system of religion was a form and nothing more. Theirs was a very lax morality (Matt. 5:20; 15:4, 8; 23:3, 14, 23, 25; John 8:7). On the first notice of them in the New Testament (Matt. 3:7), they are ranked by our Lord with the Sadducees as a "generation of vipers." They were noted for their self-righteousness and their pride (Matt. 9:11; Luke 7:39; 18:11, 12). They were frequently rebuked by our Lord (Matt. 12:39; 16:1–4).
From the very beginning of his ministry the Pharisees showed themselves bitter and persistent enemies of our Lord. They could not bear his doctrines, and they sought by every means to destroy his influence among the people. [18]
Bed
Louw-Nida
6.106 κλίνη, ης f: any piece of furniture employed for reclining or lying on—'bed, couch, cot, stretcher, bier.' προσέφερον αὐτῷ παραλυτικὸν ἐπὶ κλίνης βεβλημένον 'they brought him a paralyzed man, lying on a stretcher' Mt 9.2. In Mt 9.2 a rendering such as 'stretcher' or 'cot' is certainly more advisable than the traditional rendering 'bed,' which might imply a large piece of furniture. In each passage one must employ a term which is most likely to identify the type of object which fits the context.[19]
Mark 2 uses a related word, but one that is more accurately translated, "pallet."
6.107 κλινίδιον, ου n; κλινάριον, ου n; κράβαττος, ου m: a relatively small and often temporary type of object on which a person may lie or recline—'cot, pallet, stretcher.'
κλινίδιον: καθῆκαν αὐτὸν σὺν τῷ κλινιδίῳ εἰς τὸ μέσον ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ Ἰησοῦ 'they let him down on a stretcher in the middle (of the crowd) before Jesus' Lk 5.19.
κλινάριον: εἰς τὰς πλατείας ἐκφέρειν τοὺς ἀσθενεῖς καὶ τιθέναι ἐπὶ κλιναρίων καὶ κραβάττων 'they carried the sick people into the streets and put them on cots and pallets' Ac 5.15.
κράβαττος: χαλῶσι τὸν κράβαττον ὅπου ὁ παραλυτικὸς κατέκειτο 'they let down the pallet on which the paralyzed man lay' Mk 2.4.
In a number of contexts the terms κλινίδιον, κλινάριον, and κράβαττος refer to cots or stretchers on which sick or convalescent persons might be resting or on which they could be transported. There is no NT context in which these terms refer to couches on which people reclined while eating.[20]
Paralyzed
Enhanced Strong's
3886 παραλύω [paraluo /par·al·oo·o/] v. From 3844 and 3089; GK 4168; Five occurrences; AV translates as "sick of the palsy" twice, "taken with palsy" twice, and "feeble" once. 1 to loose on one side or from the side. 2 to loose or part things placed side by side. 3 to loosen, dissolve. 4 to weaken, enfeeble. 5 suffering from the relaxing of the nerves, unstrung, weak of limb. 6 tottering, weakened, feeble knees.
Louw-Nida
23.170 παραλύομαι: to suffer paralysis in one or more limbs, especially in the leg or foot—'to be paralyzed, to be lame.' φέροντες ἐπὶ κλίνης ἄνθρωπον ὃς ἦν παραλελυμένος 'they carried a paralyzed man on a bed' Lk 5.18.
In He 12.12 παραλύομαι occurs in a highly figurative context: τὰ παραλελυμένα γόνατα ἀνορθώσατε 'straighten up the paralyzed knees.' It is often better in this context to speak of 'strengthening the weak knees,' but in any event, the reference to the physical situation of the individual is merely a way of speaking about a psychological state (see 25.152).[21]
Brought
Louw-Nida
15.194 εἰσφέρω; εἰσάγωb: to carry or bring something into an area or structure—'to bring in, to carry in.'
εἰσφέρω: ὧν γὰρ εἰσφέρεται ζῴων τὸ αἷμα περὶ ἁμαρτίας εἰς τὰ ἅγια διὰ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως 'the Jewish High Priest brings the blood of the animals into the Most Holy Place to offer it as a sacrifice for sins' He 13.11.
εἰσάγωb: εἰσήγαγον διαδεξάμενοι οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν μετὰ Ἰησοῦ 'having received (the tabernacle), our fathers under Joshua brought it in (with them)' Ac 7.45.[22]
authority
37.35 ἐξουσίαa, ας f: the right to control or govern over—'authority to rule, right to control.' ἴσθι ἐξουσίαν ἔχων ἐπάνω δέκα πόλεων 'go with the authority to rule over ten cities' Lk 19.17.
37.36 ἐξουσίαb, ας f: the domain or sphere over which one has authority to control or rule—'jurisdiction.' σοὶ δώσω τὴν ἐξουσίαν ταύτην ἅπασαν 'I will give to you all of this jurisdiction' Lk 4.6; ἐπιγνοὺς ὅτι ἐκ τῆς ἐξουσίας Ηρῴδου ἐστίν 'learning that he was from the jurisdiction of Herod' Lk 23.7. In translating ἐξουσίαb in the sense of 'jurisdiction,' it is often possible simply to use terms such as 'territory' or 'land' or even 'peoples,' as in the case of Lk 4.6.[23]
Power ("…on earth to forgive sins…," etc.)
TDNTA
dýnamai [to be able], dynatós [able], dynatéō [to be able], adýnatos [unable], adynatéō [to be unable], dýnamis [ability, power], dynástēs [ruler], dynamóō [to give power], endynamóō [to give power]
Words of this stem all have the basic sense of ability or capability. dýnamai means a. "to be able" in a general sense, b. "to be able" with reference to the attitude that makes one able, hence sometimes "to will," and c. (of things) "to be equivalent to," "to count as," "to signify." dynatós means "one who has ability or power," "one who is powerful"; the neuter adjective signifies "what is possible or practicable." dynatéō means "to have great ability." adýnatos means "one who has no ability or strength"; the noun tó adýnaton signifies "impossibility" and adýnatón esti "to be impossible." adynatéō means "not to be able." dýnamis, the most important word in the group, means "ability," then "possibility," then "power" both physical and intellectual or spiritual. dýnastēs has the sense of "one who can do something" and was early used for "ruler" (including God as ruler). dynamóō and endynamóō both mean "to give power," "to make strong," "to strengthen."
A. The Concepts of Power in the Greek and Hellenistic World. The term dýnamis shows that all life in the cosmos is viewed dynamically. dýnamis is a cosmic principle. In Pythagorean teaching number is filled with effective force. Plato calls dýnamis the absolute mark of being. The Stoics refer to a self-originating and self-moving force. noús still underlies dýnamis in Aristotle and the Stoics, but dýnamis is the basic principle in Poseidonius. In Greek philosophy the cosmic principle is the same thing as God. There is thus little reference to the power of God, for God himself is power. The individual gods are dynámeis of the universal force; they personify the capabilities of a neutral deity. In Hellenism the world is a manifestation of the forces that work in and by and on it. To do anything one must know these forces and share in them. Magic is an application of this principle. It seeks contact, not with deity, but with the demonic natural and cosmic forces that stand under deity. Knowing these forces, the magician can mediate them for the good or ill of others. Yet the gods might also intervene directly to help or to heal. This may be seen in the healing miracles of Epidaurus, which are called dymámeis ("acts of power"). Acts of divine punishment bear the same name. Humans are outside the forces that rule the cosmos and have to attain to participation in them, especially with a view to salvation from mortality, or from the bondage of matter. The mystery religions are designed to provide the power of salvation in various forms, e.g., by an initiation which will make it possible to be taken up into the cosmic system of forces. The fundamental concept in the Greek sphere, then, is that of a natural force which, imparted in different ways, controls, moves, and governs the cosmos.
B. The Idea of Power in the OT. The decisive difference in the OT is that the power of a personal God replaces the neutral force of nature that is equated with deity. Traces of a neutral idea of power may be found in the OT (cf. the power of the ark), but unlike the nature gods, Yahweh is a God of history, so that originally naturalistic elements are all subsumed. Nor is power itself the main thing, but the will which it must execute and serve. The exodus is thus the supreme example of divine power (cf. Ex. 15:6, 13; 32:11; Dt. 9:26, etc.). Dt. 3:24 gives classical expression to the significance of the exodus. God's power is demonstrated in this decisive act at the heart of OT faith and worship. This power is to be declared to the nations, and Israel is to be God's people and to obey and serve him. In time of need, she can confidently seek a further deployment of the same power (cf. Neh. 1:10; Is. 10:33). The description of God as the "lord of hosts" (dynámeis is sometimes used for hosts in the LXX) echoes the historical distinctiveness of the OT concept of God and his power, for God is Lord of all the powers, and worship of the powers in the form of astral deities is forbidden (2 Kgs. 17:16; cf. the sharp contrast in Dt. 4:19 and 4:20). To be sure, God manifests himself in the volcano or the storm (Ps. 29), but he does so as the God of history; nature is the theater of his acts and has its origin in his will (cf. Is. 40:26). The same power as fashions history creates and sustains the world (cf. Jer. 27:5; 32:17). It also affects individual destiny. God's superior power (Job 12:13, 16) effects and controls all things, so that in individual need one must look to him for help and draw strength from him (Pss. 46:1; 86:16; cf. Dt. 8:17-18; Is. 41:10). The power of God is not capricious, for it expresses his will and is thus determined by his righteousness (Is. 5:16). Having the inner energy of holiness, it is effective as the power of judgment and grace, and it serves the manifestation and magnification of his glory (Ps. 24:8). All ideas of magic are thus excluded. We are brought into the sphere of a relationship in which obedience, prayer, and sacrifice replace incantations and rituals. The uniqueness of the OT concept of God and his power issues in doxologies which have parallels in other religions but which are distinguished by their reference to the mighty acts of God in history and by the glow of joy in God, of passion, and of experience of God. For examples cf. 1 Chr. 29:10ff.; Pss. 21:13; 59:16; 2 Chr. 20:6; Dan. 3:27-28.
C. Ideas of Power in Rabbinical and Hellenistic Judaism.
1.a. Awareness of the demonstration of God's power in the exodus persists and indeed is heightened by the Maccabean deliverance. God's greatness is seen in creation and his power in the exodus. Yet creation, too, is the work of the word as an instrument of God's power. Individuals may also rely on God's power.
b. An emphasis develops, however, on the eschatological deployment of God's power. This has an OT basis, as in Is. 2:19; Ezek. 20:33. Many things take place now that are against God's will and are due to subjection to other powers. There is thus hope and longing for a decisive manifestation of God's power in a final conflict. The hostile forces which now lie between God and us are thought of as demons and are sometimes called dynámeis, perhaps on the basis of the heavenly hosts of the OT as these are seen in detachment from God. These powers seem to be natural forces personified as angels, i.e., as intermediate beings ruling the realm between heaven and earth. Some are good and magnify God, but others belong to Beliar or Satan, who rules humanity through them. The human race is thus a battlefield of good and bad forces, and paganism worships these intermediate creatures instead of the true and living God. Some influence of Hellenism may be seen in the development of these ideas of demonic dynámei.
c. Yet the supremacy of God remains. God's essence is found in his power, so that when the name of God is avoided, power can be used as a designation, as in Mt. 26:64. This is not a hypostatization, but a paraphrase of the divine name. As regards the saving power of God, it is found in the law. The strength that God gives his people is none other than the law. By the law he creates the world, directs his people, and gives sanctification and power to those who obey it. The law is thus saving power as the revelation of God's will.
2. Philo tends more toward Hellenism by viewing God as pure being and thus making a hypostasis of his power. God is the supreme power, but the powers are independent of God, though they belong to his eternal world and are linked to his lógos and names. Deriving from the OT an ethical view of God, Philo ascribes ethical functions to the powers. They have their source in God's holiness and they serve the one goal of overcoming human pollution. In Philo, then, the Hellenistic view of power unites with the OT view of God.
D. The Concept of Power in the NT.
1. The Fact of Christ. Like all NT concepts, the NT concept of power receives its decisive impress from the fact of Christ. This fact is obviously linked with the OT view of the Messiah, who is consistently related to the strength of God (cf. Is. 9:5; 11:2. Ps. 110:2; Mic. 5:5). This strength is primarily kingly, but prophetic power is also involved (cf. Mic. 3:8; Acts 7:22 [Moses]; Lk. 1:17 [the Baptist]). The prophetic aspect achieves greater prominence in the NT (cf. Lk. 24:19). Yet Christ is more than a prophet endowed with power; his whole being is a unique one that is peculiarly determined by the power of God. This comes to expression in the parallelism of the Holy Spirit and the power of the Most High in the story of the virgin conception. No attempt is made to describe the mode; the incarnation begins with a conception that transcends normal processes of generation. At the birth of Christ a special and unique act of power rightly gives him the title Son of God (Lk. 1:35). On this basis, Christ is the bearer of the special power of the Spirit in his ministry (Lk. 4:14, 36). As God's essence is power, endowment with power is linked to the gift of the Spirit, and this gift confers on Christ his authority (exousía)—an authority which he has the power (dýmamis) to exercise in expelling demons or healing the sick (cf. Lk. 5:17; 6:19; 8:46). For this reason the witness of his disciples is that God anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit and with power (Acts 10:38). The works he does can also be called dynámeis (cf. Mt. 11:10ff.; Mk. 6:2; Lk. 19:37; also Acts 2:22). These works differ from similar acts of power in the contemporary world in three ways: a. they have no connection with magic; b. they are done by the word, which is the word of the omnipotent God whose kingdom here enters history and overthrows the rule of hostile forces; c. they presuppose faith both in him who does the work and in those on whose behalf they are done, so that a personal relation is demanded (cf. Mt. 13:58; Mk. 9:14ff.). In faith, all things are possible; there is power (Mk. 9:23). For in faith we share God's rule. The mighty works evoke astonishment and praise (Mt. 13:54; Lk. 19:37), and in Herod, perhaps, an uneasy conscience (Mt. 14:2). John's Gospel does not use dynámeis, but with exousía and sēmeíon employs the verb dýnasthai, which shifts the emphasis from the act to the capability (cf. Jn. 3:2). The sēmeia, performed in the fullness of messianic power, are unique acts. Jesus can do them only because God is with him, i.e., he has the power of God in fellowship with the Father. In Jn. 9 the blind man, when cured, testifies to the divine dýnasthai of Jesus (9:33), and some of the Pharisees agree (9:16). Similarly in Jn. 11, when it is asked whether Jesus could not have healed Lazarus (11:37), he shows his unlimited dýnasthai by raising him. It is only in fellowship with Jesus that his disciples also can do things (15:5), but he recognizes at the same time that his own dýnasthai has its source in God (5:19, 30). The special features in John are a. that we have in this dýnasthai the unique Christ event, and b. that the power in this event is the power of God initiating the new aeon. This power finds particular demonstration in the crucifixion and resurrection. Christ's own resurrection backs up his saying in Mt. 22:29. Peter in Acts 2:24 puts this resurrection power very strikingly in the negative: Christ cannot be held by death. The power of death is broken. As God's power empowered Jesus for acts of power, it empowers him for new life. Paul makes this point in 1 Cor. 6:14 and 2 Cor. 13:4. Christ is declared God's Son in power by his resurrection (Rom. 1:4). We thus preach Christ as God's power (1 Cor. 1:24). The resurrection does not make Christ the Son of God, or give him power as such; what he has by it is sonship in full power in contrast with the apparent weakness of the incarnation (2 Cor. 13:4). If Christ is called God's power in the absolute, it is not because he personifies power, but because in him the power of God works victoriously in history and brings it to its goal. In Hebrews this power is called the power of an indestructible life; it is beyond the reach of mortality. With this power the Son is set at God's right hand where he rules the world (1:3). In Revelation this power is identical with glory (1:16). The Lamb that was slain is worthy to receive power (5:12). Christ's people await his coming in power (Mk. 9:1) which will complete his work and establish God's perfect rule with the subjection of every other force (Phil. 3:21). This coming will be a visible one, and Christ will be accompanied by his mighty angels (2 Th. 1:7).
2. The Power of God, Demonic powers, and the Power of Salvation.
a. The Christ event sheds light on the power of God. Christ's power is God's, so that it is depicted as endowment. Christ shares this power by personal fellowship with God. His power is thus the historical power of an eschatological event, as in the OT. God's omnipotence is manifested in the Christ event (Heb. 11:19; cf. Mt. 22:29). God is the dynatós in virtue of his omnipotent rule (Lk. 1:49). All things are possible for him (Mt. 19:26). As faith perceives, all things manifestly declare his eternal power and deity (Rom. 1:20). The NT can thus adopt the OT doxology, as in Mt. 6:13; Rev. 4:11, etc. The doxologies of Rev. 11:17-18 and 12:10 imply acknowledgment that God's power will destroy hostile forces and bring the world to perfection, as the power in the Christ event has already shown.
b. The Christ event also sheds a new light on demonic powers. The NT recognizes these (cf. Mt. 24:29). These are cosmic but also angelic powers. They have lost their force with the resurrection of Christ and will be publicly stripped of it at his return. Between these two events, there is tension. The powers are disarmed, for the new life of believers derives from God and is set under his rule (Eph. 1:20-21; Rom. 8:38-39). Yet they still fight (Rev. 13:2) and have to be brought to submission (1 Cor. 15:24). The antichrist will come with power and spread deception; only Christ's coming again will finally destroy him (2 Th. 2:9).
c. Christ's work also gives a new answer to the question of the power of salvation. When the disciples ask who can be saved, Christ replies that there is no human power to save, only God's omnipotent power (Mt. 19:26). Paul sharply stresses human inability in Rom. 8. Due to our weakness, even the law cannot save from sin and death (v. 3). Hebrews finds the same inability in the cultus (10:1, 4, 11). As Jn. 3:3 says, unless there is a new birth, we cannot see God's kingdom. Of ourselves we cannot bear to hear God's word (Jn. 8:43). No one can come to God unless the Father draws him (6:44). Only God has the power to save, and he puts forth his power in Jesus (Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 1:18). This power is not that of mystical initiation or of a mere direction to salvation; it is the power of the word of the cross. It grants salvation by liberating us from the power of darkness and putting us in the kingdom of God's dear Son. It is grounded in the saving act of the Christ event, i.e., in God's mighty work in history. Only in 2 Pet. 1:3-4 do we have a hint of a substantial rather than a dynamic conception when it is said that God's power grants us the things pertaining to life and godliness with a view to our escaping corruption and becoming partakers of the divine nature.
3. The power of the Disciple. As the dýnamis of God, preaching continues Christ's saving work, and the apostles, representing Christ, are endowed with his power. Jesus equips the disciples with power when he sends them out in Lk. 9:1. This power overmatches demonic power (Lk. 10:19). The disciples have it only in faith (Mk. 9:14ff.). It is the power of Christ's own presence by the Spirit (cf. Lk. 24:48ff.; Acts 1:8). A special endowment of power takes place at Pentecost which leads to healing as well as preaching in power (Acts 4:7ff., 33; 6:8, 10). Paul's ministry is effective by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 15:19). dynámeis are a mark of the apostolate (Gal. 3:5; 1 Th. 1:5). But the power is that of the Spirit as the mode both of Christ's presence and of the believer's existence. Apostles themselves are witnesses of the cross; they preach in outward weakness but in demonstration of the Spirit and power, so that the faith of their hearers rests in the power of God (1 Cor. 2:1ff.). dýnamis relates to the content of the message, not the form. The goal of preaching is the exhibition of Christ's presence by the Spirit and therefore the exhibition of God's saving power in Christ. It is by the same power that Paul is made a minister (Eph. 3:7). In the interests of the community, the power of Christ can also be judicial, as in 1 Cor. 5:3ff. It should be noted here that Satan can have no power over the believer unless the latter is handed over to him, and that even then the purpose is still one of salvation. In the apostle's own life and ministry, the power of Christ means a continual strengthening (Phil. 4:13; 1 Tim. 1:12; 2 Tim. 4:17). This strengthening takes the form of support, and is thus to be construed, not in terms of mana, but in terms of a personal relation between Christ and his servant.
4. The Community. A community that rests in God's saving power is the goal (1 Cor. 2:1ff.). Believers may be strong as they are "in the Lord" (Eph. 6:10). Rescued from Satan's power, yet still beset by perils, they know the power of Christ to protect and preserve. They are guarded by God's power through faith (1 Pet. 1:5). The apostle's prayer is that they may enjoy the greatness of God's power (Eph. 1:19), or that they may be strengthened with all power (Col. 1:11). This power, grounded in Christ's resurrection, creates the hope of their calling and a glorious inheritance. Christians are to know this power with a view to endurance and patience. It is a power that transforms as well as preserves. By the power of the Spirit they abound in hope (Rom. 15:13). Strengthened with might by the Spirit in the inner man, they grow in fellowship with Christ, in comprehension, and in love of Christ (Eph. 3:14ff.). Born of God, they cannot sin (1 Jn. 3:9), but have a new capacity for love (1 Jn. 4:7). Every good resolve and work of faith may be fulfilled by the power of God (2 Th. 1:11). Members of the community may also have the spiritual gift of performing dynámeis (1 Cor. 12:10). Furthermore, the power at work in the community is ultimately resurrection power (cf. 2 Cor. 13:3ff.). God raised up the Lord and will raise us up by his power (1 Cor. 6:14). The changing of the body of humiliation into a body of glory is grounded in God's omnipotence (Phil. 3:21). No one can snatch believers out of Christ's hand (Jn. 10:28-29). Paul can give up all things to know Christ and the power of his resurrection-the mighty act which creates new and eternal life for his people. This is the source of real dýnamis.
5. Power and Weakness. God's power operates in the weak and corruptible sphere of human existence. It is thus visible only to faith, but for this very reason it is known as divine, not human power. Concealment in apparent weakness is the law of the cross (2 Cor. 13:4). But God's weakness is stronger than men (1 Cor. 1:25), as Paul comes to realize in all the weakness of his apostolic ministry (2 Cor. 12:9-10; cf. Phil. 4:13). The transcendent power belongs to God (2 Cor. 4:7), who gives a spirit, not of timidity, but of power and love and self-control (2 Tim. 1:7). Weakness is the presupposition of the working of divine power. It is the pledge of Christ's presence in which Paul finds freedom from self and reliance on God. By the law of strength in weakness, the resurrection power of God is more abundantly exerted, whether in ministers of the gospel or in the Christian community as a whole. "By the power of God" expresses the reality of faith for the apostolate and all Christian life (2 Cor. 6:7). [W. Grundmann, II, 284-317][24]
Blasphemy
New Bible Dictionary
I. In the Old Testament
Here the root meaning of the word is an act of effrontery in which the honour of God is insulted by man. The proper object of the verb is the name of God, which is cursed or reviled instead of being honoured. (Compare the common biblical and rabbinical phrase, 'Blessed art thou, O Lord.') The penalty of the outrage of blasphemy is death by stoning (Lv. 24:10–23; 1 Ki. 21:9ff.; Acts 6:11; 7:58).
In the first reference it is a half-caste Israelite who sins in this way; and, generally speaking, blasphemy is committed by pagans (2 Ki. 19:6, 22 = Is. 37:6, 23; Pss. 44:16; 74:10, 18; Is. 52:5), sometimes incited to it by the bad example and moral lapses of the Lord's people (2 Sa. 12:14). It follows also that when God's people fall into idolatry they are regarded as committing the blasphemy of the heathen (Is. 65:7; Ezk. 20:27). The name of Yahweh which it is Israel's peculiar destiny to hallow (see G. F. Moore, Judaism, 2, 1927–30, p. 103) is profaned by the faithless and disobedient people.
II. In the New Testament
Here there is an extension of the meaning. God is blasphemed also in his representatives. So the word is used of Moses (Acts 6:11); Paul (Rom. 3:8; 1 Cor. 4:12; 10:30); and especially the Lord Jesus, in his ministry of forgiveness (Mk. 2:7 and parallels), at his *trial (Mk. 14:61–64), and at Calvary (Mt. 27:39; Lk. 23:39). Because these representatives embody the truth of God himself (and our Lord in a unique way), an insulting word spoken against them and their teaching is really directed against the God in whose name they speak (so Mt. 10:40; Lk. 10:16). Saul of Tarsus fulminated against the early followers of Jesus and tried to compel them to blaspheme, i.e. to curse the saving name (Acts 24:11), and thereby to renounce their baptismal vow in which they confessed that 'Jesus is Lord' (cf. 1 Cor. 12:3; Jas. 2:7). His misdirected zeal, however, was not simply against the church, but against the Lord himself (1 Tim. 1:13; cf. Acts 9:4).
The term is also used, in a weaker sense, of slanderous language addressed to men (e.g. Mk. 3:28; 7:22; Eph. 4:31; Col. 3:8; Tit. 3:2). Here the best translation is 'slander, abuse'. These verses condemn a prevalent vice; but their warning may be grounded in a theological as well as an ethical context if we remember Jas. 3:9. Men are not to be cursed because on them, as men, the 'formal' image of God is stamped and the human person is, in some sense, God's representative on earth (cf. Gn. 9:6).
There are two problem texts. 2 Pet. 2:10–11 speaks of blasphemy against 'the glorious ones' whom angels dare not revile. These are probably evil angelic powers against whom false teachers presumed to direct their insults (cf. Jude 8). The blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Mt. 12:32; Mk. 3:29) carries with it the awful pronouncement that the sinner is 'guilty of an eternal sin' which cannot be forgiven. The verse is a solemn warning against persistent, deliberate rejection of the Spirit's call to salvation in Christ. Human unresponsiveness inevitably leads to a state of moral insensibility and to a confusion of moral issues wherein evil is embraced as though it were good ('Evil, be thou my Good'; cf. Is. 5:18–20; Jn. 3:19). The example of this attitude is that of the Pharisees, who attributed Jesus' works of mercy to Satan. In such a frame of mind repentance is not possible to the hardened heart because the recognition of sin is no longer possible, and God's offer of mercy is in effect peremptorily refused. To be in this perilous condition is to cut oneself off from the source of forgiveness. Hebert adds a helpful pastoral note: 'People who are distressed in their souls for fear that they have committed the sin against the Holy Ghost should in most cases be told that their distress is proof that they have not committed that sin' (TWBR, p. 32).
Bibliography. HDB, 1, p. 109; H. W. Beyer, TDNT 1, pp. 621–625; H. Währisch, C. Brown, W. Mundle in NIDNTT 3, pp. 340–347. r.p.m.[25]
Tyndale Bible Dictionary
BLASPHEMY Profane or contemptuous speech or writing about (or action toward) God. In a general sense, "blasphemy" can refer to any slander, including any word or action that insults or devalues another being. In Greek literature the term was used for insulting or deriding living or dead persons, but it was extended to cover the gods as well, including both doubting the power of and mocking the nature of a god.
In the OT, "blasphemy" always means to insult God, either by attacking him directly or mocking him indirectly. Either way the glory and honor of God are lessened, so blasphemy is the opposite of praise. An Israelite might directly insult the "Name" by cursing God (Lv 24:10–16) or deliberately disobey God's law (Nm 15:30). Either of those blasphemies was punishable by death, as was idolatry, the ultimate blasphemy (Is 66:3). It was thought that Gentiles, who had never experienced the power and majesty of the Lord, were the most likely blasphemers. Thus the king of Assyria blasphemed in equating the Lord with the gods of the nations he had already conquered (2 Kgs 19:4–6, 22). For his arrogance the king was doomed by the word of the prophet Isaiah. God was also mocked when Israel was exiled (Is 52:5), when Edom derided the desolate "mountains of Israel" (Ez 35:12, kjv), and when the enemy scoffed that God had not protected Jerusalem (Ps 74:18; 1 Macc 2:6).
In the NT, blasphemy takes on the wider Greek meaning, for it includes slandering a human being (Mt 15:19; see also Rom 3:8; 1 Cor 10:30; Eph 4:31; Ti 3:2), as well as God. It even includes mocking angelic or demonic powers, which is just as wrong as mocking any other being (2 Pt 2:10–12, Jude 1:8–10). In other words, slander, derision, and mocking of any kind are totally condemned in the NT.
The most common form of blasphemy in the NT is blasphemy against God. One might insult God directly (Rv 13:6; 16:9), mock his word (Ti 2:5), or reject his revelation and its bearer (Acts 6:11). Jesus was accused of blasphemy when he claimed to have a prerogative belonging to God—the power to forgive sins (Mk 2:7). John 10:33–36 reports an attempt to stone Jesus; his accusers said to him, "You, being a man, make yourself God" (v 33). Jesus was condemned by the highest Jewish court, the Sanhedrin, on the charge of blasphemy, because he claimed to be the Son of Man (the Messiah) but in their view had given no evidence that he was such an exalted personage, thus appearing to mock the Messiah and, by extension, to mock God himself (Mk 14:64).
Naturally the early Christians viewed Jesus' trial from another perspective: the guards insulting Jesus (Lk 22:64–65) and the crowds and two dying robbers mocking him on the cross (Mk 15:29–32) were the real blasphemers. Observing how their Lord had been treated, the church was prepared to accept insult as their own lot, both personally (1 Cor 4:13; 1 Tm 1:13; Rv 2:9) and as a response to their message (Acts 13:45; 18:6). On the other hand, the church recognized that even Christians could blaspheme by giving way under persecution (26:11), by teaching false doctrine (2 Pt 2:2), or by behaving in an unbecoming fashion, which would bring others to think less of Christ (Rom 2:24; Ti 2:5).
The Bible makes clear that blasphemy is forgivable (Mt 12:32; Mk 3:28–29), but if a person will not repent, the only remedy is to turn him or her over to Satan to be taught the lesson (1 Tm 1:20).[26]
Harper's Bible Dictionary
blasphemy, a term derived from a Greek word meaning to injure the reputation of another. In the Bible it means showing contempt or a lack of reverence for God (Lev. 24:16; Mark 2:7) or something sacred (Matt. 26:65), including claiming for oneself divine attributes by word or deed (Mark 14:64; John 10:33). [27]
Easton's Bible Dictionary
Blasphemy — In the sense of speaking evil of God this word is found in Ps. 74:18; Isa. 52:5; Rom. 2:24; Rev. 13:1, 6; 16:9, 11, 21. It denotes also any kind of calumny, or evil-speaking, or abuse (1 Kings 21:10; Acts 13:45; 18:6, etc.). Our Lord was accused of blasphemy when he claimed to be the Son of God (Matt. 26:65; comp. Matt. 9:3; Mark 2:7). They who deny his Messiahship blaspheme Jesus (Luke 22:65; John 10:36).
Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (Matt. 12:31, 32; Mark 3:28, 29; Luke 12:10) is regarded by some as a continued and obstinate rejection of the gospel, and hence is an unpardonable sin, simply because as long as a sinner remains in unbelief he voluntarily excludes himself from pardon. Others regard the expression as designating the sin of attributing to the power of Satan those miracles which Christ performed, or generally those works which are the result of the Spirit's agency. [28]
New Nave's Topical Bible
BLASPHEMY. See also Slander; Speaking, Evil.Ex. 20:7 Deut. 5:11. Lev. 19:12 Lev. 22:32. Lev. 24:10–16; 2 Kin. 19:22 Isa. 37:23. 2 Chr. 32:19 The following passages from the book of Job (with the exception of Job 21:13,14) are interpreted by some authorities as blasphemy.) Job 9:16–18, 34, 35; Job 10:2–7; Job 13:7–9, 25–27; Job 15:13, 25, 26; Job 16:9, 11–14; Job 19:6, 7, 21, 22; Job 21:13, 14; Job 22:12–14, 17; Job 30:21; Job 33:10, 11; Job 34:5, 6, 9, 16–19, 37; Job 37:20; Job 40:2; Psa. 10:11, 13; Psa. 50:21; Psa. 73:9, 11; Psa. 74:18; Psa. 78:19, 20; Psa. 94:7; Psa. 139:20; Prov. 30:8, 9 v. 7.; Isa. 8:21, 22; Isa. 29:15, 16; Isa. 36:15, 18, 20, 21; Isa. 37:10; Isa. 40:27; Isa. 45:9; Isa. 52:5; Isa. 65:7; Jer. 4:10; Jer. 17:15; Jer. 20:7; Jer. 23:10; Ezek. 8:12; Ezek. 9:9; Ezek. 18:25; Ezek. 20:27; Ezek. 33:17–20; Ezek. 35:12, 13; Dan. 7:25; Dan. 11:36, 37; Hos. 7:13; Zeph. 1:12; Zech. 5:3, 4; Mal. 3:13, 14; Matt. 10:25; Matt. 12:31, 32 Mark 3:29, 30; Luke 12:10. Matt. 15:19; Mark 7:21–23; John 19:7; Rom. 2:24 2 Sam. 12:14. 1 Cor. 12:3; Col. 3:8; 2 Thess. 2:4; 2 Tim. 3:2 Rev. 16:11; Heb. 10:29; Jas. 2:7; Jas. 3:10; Jas. 5:12; 2 Pet. 3:3, 4; Rev. 13:1, 6; Rev. 16:9, 21; Rev. 17:3 Prophecy of, Rev. 13:1, 5, 6; 16:9, 11, 21; 17:3.
Instances of: The depraved son of Shelomith, who, in an altercation with an Israelite, cursed God, Lev. 24:10–16. Of the Israelites, in complaining against God, Num. 21:5, 6. Infidels, who used the adultery of David as an occasion to blaspheme, 2 Sam. 12:14. Shimei, in his malice toward David, 2 Sam. 16:5. Rabshakeh, in the siege of Jerusalem, 2 Kin. 18:22; 19; Isa. 36:15–20; 37:10–33. Job's wife, when she exhorted Job to curse God and die, Job 2:9. Peter, when accused of being a disciple of Jesus, Matt. 26:74; Mark 14:71. The revilers of Jesus, when he was crucified, Matt. 27:40–44, 63. The early Christians, persecuted by Saul of Tarsus, compelled to blaspheme the name of Jesus, Acts 26:11; 1 Tim. 1:13. Two disciples, Hymenaeus and Alexander, who were delivered to Satan that they might learn not to blaspheme, 1 Tim. 1:20. Man of sin, 2 Thess. 2:3, 4. Backslidden Ephesians, Rev. 2:9.
False Indictments for: Of Naboth, 1 Kin. 21:13; Jesus, Matt. 26:65; Mark 14:58; Luke 22:70, 71; John 19:7; Stephen, Acts 6:11, 13. Jesus falsely accused of, previously to his trial, Mark 2:7; Luke 5:21.[29]
Wilmington's Book of Bible Lists (Paralysis and Lameness)
| 1. Mephibosheth, the crippled grandson of Saul | 2 Sam. 4:4 |
| 2. Man at Capernaum, lowered from a roof to be healed | Mark 2:1–12; Luke 5:18–25 |
| 3. Centurion's servant whom Jesus healed without even being present | Matt. 8:5–13; Luke 7:1–10 |
| 4. Man by pool at Bethesda who had suffered for 38 years when Jesus healed him | John 5:1–8 |
| 5. Woman in synagogue who had suffered for 18 years when Jesus healed her | Luke 13:10–13 |
| 6. Man at Beautiful Gate whom Peter healed through the power of Christ | Acts 3:2 |
| 7. Aeneas, who had suffered eight years when Peter healed him | Acts 9:33–34 |
| 8. Man at Lystra whom Paul healed (an act for which Paul was later stoned) | Acts 14:8–10 |
[30]
Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge
16 6:12 Mt 14:23 Mr 1:35,36 6:46 Joh 6:15
17 that there. 21,30 7:30 11:52-54 15:2 Joh 3:21 Jerusalem. Mt 15:1 Mr 3:22 7:1 power. 6:19 8:46 Mt 11:5 Mr 16:18 Ac 4:30 19:11
18 Mt 9:2-8 Mr 2:3-12 Joh 5:5,6 Ac 9:33
19 they went. Mr 2:4 housetop. De 22:8 2Sa 11:2 Jer 19:13 Mt 10:27
20 he saw. Ge 22:12 Joh 2:25 Ac 11:23 14:9 Jas 2:18 Man. 7:48 Ps 90:7,8 107:17,18 Isa 38:17 Mt 9:2 Mr 2:5 Joh 5:14 2Co 2:10 Col 3:13 Jas 5:14,15
21 scribes. 17 7:49 Mr 2:6,7 blasphemies. Le 24:16 1Ki 21:10-14 Mt 9:3 26:65 Joh 10:33 Ac 6:11-13 Who can. Ex 34:6,7 Ps 32:5 35:5 103:3 130:4 Isa 1:18 43:25 44:22 Da 9:9,19 Mic 7:19 Ro 8:33
22 perceived. 1Ch 28:9 Ps 139:2 Pr 15:26 Isa 66:18 Eze 38:10 Mt 9:4 12:25 Heb 4:12 Re 2:23 What. 24:38 Mr 8:17 Ac 5:3
23 Mt 9:5 Mr 2:9
24 that the. Da 7:13 Mt 16:13 25:31 26:64 Joh 3:13 5:27 Re 1:13 power. Isa 53:11 Mt 9:6 28:18 Joh 5:8,12,22,23 17:2 20:22,23 Ac 5:31 I say. 13 7:14 8:54 Joh 11:43 Ac 3:6-8 9:34,40 14:10 and take. Joh 5:8-12
25 immediately. 13 Ge 1:3 Ps 33:9 glorifying. 13:13 17:15-18 18:43 Ps 50:23 103:1-3 107:20-22 Joh 9:24
26 and they. 7:16 Mt 9:8 12:23 Mr 2:12 Ac 4:21 Ga 1:24 and were. 8 8:37 Jer 33:9 Ho 3:5 Mt 28:8 Ac 5:11-13[31]
"Who can forgive sins but God alone?"
"25 "I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more." (Isaiah 43:25, NIV)
Greek Interlinear (USB)
| | 17 | Καὶ | | ἐγένετο | | ἐν | | μιᾷ | | τῶν | | ἡμερῶν | | καὶ | | αὐτὸς | | ἦν | | διδάσκων, | | καὶ | | ἦσαν | |
| | | And | | it became | | in | | one | | of the | | days | | also | | himself | | was+ | | +teaching | | and | | were+ | |
| καθήμενοι | | Φαρισαῖοι | | καὶ | | νομοδιδάσκαλοι | | οἳ | | ἦσαν | | ἐληλυθότες | | ἐκ | | πάσης | |
| +sitting | | Pharisees | | and | | law teachers | | who | | were | | having come | | from | | all | |
| κώμης | | τῆς | | Γαλιλαίας | | καὶ | | Ἰουδαίας | | καὶ | | Ἰερουσαλήμ· | | καὶ | | δύναμις | | κυρίου | | ἦν | |
| village | | of the | | Galilee | | and | | Judea | | and | | Jerusalem | | and | | power | | of Master | | was | |
| εἰς | | τὸ | | ἰᾶσθαι | | αὐτόν | . | | | | 18 | καὶ | | ἰδοὺ | | ἄνδρες | | φέροντες | | ἐπὶ | | κλίνης | | ἄνθρωπον | | ὃς | |
| into | | the | | to cure | | him | | | | | | And | | look | | men | | bringing | | on | | bed | | man | | who | |
| ἦν | | παραλελυμένος | | καὶ | | ἐζήτουν | | αὐτὸν | | εἰσενεγκεῖν | | καὶ | | θεῖναι | | [ | αὐτὸν |
| was+ | | +having been paralyzed | | and | | they were seeking | | him | | to bring in | | and | | to place | | | him |
| ] | | ἐνώπιον | | αὐτοῦ | . | | | | 19 | καὶ | | μὴ | | εὑρόντες | | ποίας | | εἰσενέγκωσιν | | αὐτὸν | | διὰ | |
| | | before | | him | | | | | | And | | not | | having found | | what kind | | they might bring in | | him | | through | |
| τὸν | | ὄχλον, | | ἀναβάντες | | ἐπὶ | | τὸ | | δῶμα | | διὰ | | τῶν | | κεράμων | | καθῆκαν | | αὐτὸν | |
| the | | crowd | | having gone up | | on | | the | | roof | | through | | the | | ceramic tiles | | they let down | | him | |
| σὺν | | τῷ | | κλινιδίῳ | | εἰς | | τὸ | | μέσον | | ἔμπροσθεν | | τοῦ | | Ἰησοῦ | . | | | | 20 | καὶ | | ἰδὼν | | τὴν | |
| with | | the | | bed | | into | | the | | middle | | in front | | of the | | Jesus | | | | | | And | | having seen | | the | |
| πίστιν | | αὐτῶν | | εἶπεν, | | Ἄνθρωπε, | | ἀφέωνταί | | σοι | | αἱ | | ἁμαρτίαι | | σου | . | | | | 21 | καὶ | |
| trust | | of them | | he said | | man | | have been sent off | | to you | | the | | sins | | of you | | | | | | And | |
| ἤρξαντο | | διαλογίζεσθαι | | οἱ | | γραμματεῖς | | καὶ | | οἱ | | Φαρισαῖοι | | λέγοντες, | | Τίς | | ἐστιν | |
| began | | to reason | | the | | writers | | and | | the | | Pharisees | | saying | | who | | is | |
| οὗτος | | ὃς | | λαλεῖ | | βλασφημίας; | | τίς | | δύναται | | ἁμαρτίας | | ἀφεῖναι | | εἰ | | μὴ | | μόνος | |
| this | | who | | speaks | | insults | | Who | | is able | | sins | | to send off | | except | | [n/a] | | alone | |
| ὁ | | θεός; | | | 22 | ἐπιγνοὺς | | δὲ | | ὁ | | Ἰησοῦς | | τοὺς | | διαλογισμοὺς | | αὐτῶν | |
| the | | God | | | | Having perceived | | but | | the | | Jesus | | the | | reasonings | | of them | |
| ἀποκριθεὶς | | εἶπεν | | πρὸς | | αὐτούς, | | Τί | | διαλογίζεσθε | | ἐν | | ταῖς | | καρδίαις | | ὑμῶν; | | | 23 |
| having answered | | said | | to | | them | | why | | reason you | | in | | the | | hearts | | of you | | | |
| τί | | ἐστιν | | εὐκοπώτερον, | | εἰπεῖν, | | Ἀφέωνταί | | σοι | | αἱ | | ἁμαρτίαι | | σου, | | ἢ | |
| What | | is | | easier labor | | to say | | have been sent off | | to you | | the | | sins | | of you | | or | |
| εἰπεῖν, | | Ἔγειρε | | καὶ | | περιπάτει; | | | 24 | ἵνα | | δὲ | | εἰδῆτε | | ὅτι | | ὁ | | υἱὸς | | τοῦ | |
| to say | | rise | | and | | walk around | | | | That | | but | | you might know | | that | | the | | son | | of | |
| ἀνθρώπου | | ἐξουσίαν | | ἔχει | | ἐπὶ | | τῆς | | γῆς | | ἀφιέναι | | ἁμαρτίας | — | εἶπεν | | τῷ | |
| the man | | authority | | has | | on | | the | | earth | | to send off | | sins | | he said | | to the | |
| παραλελυμένῳ, | | Σοὶ | | λέγω, | | ἔγειρε | | καὶ | | ἄρας | | τὸ | | κλινίδιόν | | σου | |
| one being paralyzed | | to you | | I say | | rise | | and | | having lifted up | | the | | bed | | of you | |
| πορεύου | | εἰς | | τὸν | | οἶκόν | | σου | . | | | | 25 | καὶ | | παραχρῆμα | | ἀναστὰς | | ἐνώπιον | | αὐτῶν, | |
| travel | | into | | the | | house | | of you | | | | | | And | | suddenly | | having stood up | | before | | them | |
| ἄρας | | ἐφʼ | | ὃ | | κατέκειτο, | | ἀπῆλθεν | | εἰς | | τὸν | | οἶκον | | αὐτοῦ | |
| having lifted up | | on | | what | | he was lying down | | he went off | | into | | the | | house | | of him | |
| δοξάζων | | τὸν | | θεόν | . | | | | 26 | καὶ | | ἔκστασις | | ἔλαβεν | | ἅπαντας | | καὶ | | ἐδόξαζον | | τὸν |
| giving splendor | | the | | God | | | | | | And | | amazement | | took | | all | | and | | they gave splendor | | the |
| | θεὸν | | καὶ | | ἐπλήσθησαν | | φόβου | | λέγοντες | | ὅτι | | Εἴδομεν | | παράδοξα | | σήμερον | . | | |
| | God | | and | | were filled | | of fear | | saying | | (") | | we saw | | paradoxes | | today | | | |
[32]
Ø
[1]John F. Walvoord, Roy B. Zuck and Dallas Theological Seminary, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : An Exposition of the Scriptures (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983-c1985), 2:217.
[2]Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, "An Exposition of the New Testament Comprising the Entire 'BE' Series"--Jkt. (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1996, c1989), Lk 5:17.
[3]Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, A. R. Fausset et al., A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments, On Spine: Critical and Explanatory Commentary. (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), Lk 5:17.
[4]Craig S. Keener and InterVarsity Press, The IVP Bible Background Commentary : New Testament (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993), Lk 5:17-22.
[5]D. A. Carson, New Bible Commentary : 21st Century Edition, Rev. Ed. of: The New Bible Commentary. 3rd Ed. / Edited by D. Guthrie, J.A. Motyer. 1970., 4th ed. (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill., USA: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), Lk 5:17.
[6]Larry Richards and Lawrence O. Richards, The Teacher's Commentary, Includes Index. (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1987), 656.
[7]Warren W. Wiersbe, Wiersbe's Expository Outlines on the New Testament (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1997, c1992), 159.
[8]A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol.V c1932, Vol.VI c1933 by Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention. (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1997), Lk 5:17-26.
[9]Marvin Richardson Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2002), 1:301-303.
[10]Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament : Based on Semantic Domains, electronic ed. of the 2nd edition. (New York: United Bible societies, 1996, c1989), 1:78.
[11]James Strong, The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible : Showing Every Word of the Test of the Common English Version of the Canonical Books, and Every Occurence of Each Word in Regular Order., electronic ed. (Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship., 1996), G2766.
[12]Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament : Based on Semantic Domains, electronic ed. of the 2nd edition. (New York: United Bible societies, 1996, c1989), 1:128.
[13]James Strong, The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible : Showing Every Word of the Test of the Common English Version of the Canonical Books, and Every Occurence of Each Word in Regular Order., electronic ed. (Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship., 1996), G5330.
[14]Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich and Geoffrey William Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Translation of: Theologisches Worterbuch Zum Neuen Testament. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 1995, c1985), 1246.
[15]Walter A. Elwell and Philip Wesley Comfort, Tyndale Bible Dictionary, Tyndale reference library (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, 2001), 1026.
[16]D. R. W. Wood, New Bible Dictionary (InterVarsity Press, 1996, c1982, c1962), 914.
[17]Paul J. Achtemeier, Publishers Harper & Row and Society of Biblical Literature, Harper's Bible Dictionary, Includes Index., 1st ed. (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), 782.
[18]M.G. Easton, Easton's Bible Dictionary (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996, c1897).
[19]Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament : Based on Semantic Domains, electronic ed. of the 2nd edition. (New York: United Bible societies, 1996, c1989), 1:66.
[20]Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament : Based on Semantic Domains, electronic ed. of the 2nd edition. (New York: United Bible societies, 1996, c1989), 1:66.
[21]Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament : Based on Semantic Domains, electronic ed. of the 2nd edition. (New York: United Bible societies, 1996, c1989), 1:271-272.
[22]Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament : Based on Semantic Domains, electronic ed. of the 2nd edition. (New York: United Bible societies, 1996, c1989), 1:205.
[23]Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament : Based on Semantic Domains, electronic ed. of the 2nd edition. (New York: United Bible societies, 1996, c1989), 1:475.
[24]Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich and Geoffrey William Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Translation of: Theologisches Worterbuch Zum Neuen Testament. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 1995, c1985), 186.
[25]D. R. W. Wood, New Bible Dictionary (InterVarsity Press, 1996, c1982, c1962), 142.
[26]Walter A. Elwell and Philip Wesley Comfort, Tyndale Bible Dictionary, Tyndale reference library (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, 2001), 226.
[27]Paul J. Achtemeier, Publishers Harper & Row and Society of Biblical Literature, Harper's Bible Dictionary, Includes Index., 1st ed. (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), 135.
[28]M.G. Easton, Easton's Bible Dictionary (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996, c1897).
[29]James Swanson and Orville Nave, New Nave's (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1994).
[30]H. L. Willmington, Willmington's Book of Bible Lists (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 1987).
[31]The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge : Five Hundred Thousand Scripture References and Parallel Passages., Introduction by R.A. Torrey. (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1995), Lk 5:16.
[32]Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini et al., The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition (Interlinear With Morphology) (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993; 2006), Lk 5:17-26.
