Was the paralytic saved after having sins forgiven?

[Apex]

Mark 2:5
And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven."

1. This was before Jesus' death and resurrection.
2. The faith here is not that of the paralyzed man.
3. The four friend's faith was in Jesus' ability to physically heal their paralyzed friend.

As such,

Was the paralytic immediately saved?

If so, why wasn't the paralyzed man's faith not taken into account instead?
If not, is complete forgiveness of sins not enough to gain salvation?

 

[Job3315]

Mark 2:5
And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven."

1. This was before Jesus' death and resurrection.
2. The faith here is not that of the paralyzed man.
3. The four friend's faith was in Jesus' ability to physically heal their paralyzed friend.

As such,

Was the paralytic immediately saved?

If so, why wasn't the paralyzed man's faith not taken into account instead?
If not, is complete forgiveness of sins not enough to gain salvation?

Wow, this is a very interesting question. I haven't thought about it. I’ll have to meditate on it, but I am looking forward on reading other answers.

 

[Doug Melven]

Normally when Jesus heals someone He also says to them that there faith has saved them.
I don't think the point of the story is whether or not the man was saved or not, but that he received healing based on the faith of others.

 

[Apex]

Normally when Jesus heals someone He also says to them that there faith has saved them.
I don't think the point of the story is whether or not the man was saved or not, but that he received healing based on the faith of others.

I disagree.

Mark 2:10-12
"But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"—he said to the paralytic— "I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go home." And he rose and immediately picked up his bed...

Clearly the point of this story is meant to go beyond the physical healing.

 

[JIMINZ]

Normally when Jesus heals someone He also says to them that there faith has saved them.
I don't think the point of the story is whether or not the man was saved or not, but that he received healing based on the faith of others.

.
You nailed it.

 

[JIMINZ]

Normally when Jesus heals someone He also says to them that there faith has saved them.
I don't think the point of the story is whether or not the man was saved or not, but that he received healing based on the faith of others.

.

Luke 7:50
And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

Lukk 18:42
And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee.

GREEK
SAVED:
G4982
σώζω
sōzō
sode'-zo
From a primary word σῶς sōs̄ (contraction for the obsolete σάος saos, “safe”); to save, that is, deliver or protect (literally or figuratively): - heal, preserve, save (self), do well, be (make) whole.

Not Salvation as Believing in Jesus as in, the forgiveness of sins, but a physical salvation from physical sickness and disease.

Whereas, Salvation as we know it to be is a Spiritual happening, which changes the person Spiritually.

 

[Bobber]

Mark 2:5
And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven."

1. This was before Jesus' death and resurrection.
2. The faith here is not that of the paralyzed man.
3. The four friend's faith was in Jesus' ability to physically heal their paralyzed friend.

Yes before Jesus death and resurrection. Even though we think of the four gospels as the New Testament from a covenant standpoint it was still the Old Covenant....yes Jesus said his sins were forgiven but so were Old Testament people's sins forgiven. Once the New Covenant began their sins were not merely covered or forgiven from an Old Testament standpoint they were blotted out. There is a difference between sins being covered and blotted out. Hebrews 10:14

The faith was not that of the paralyzed man? How could one prove that? For an afflicted one to be willing to have friends take him to the roof and let him down I'd say that willingness took faith.

 

[Apex]

Yes before Jesus death and resurrection. Even though we think of the four gospels as the New Testament from a covenant standpoint it was still the Old Covenant....yes Jesus said his sins were forgiven but so were Old Testament people's sins forgiven. Once the New Covenant began their sins were not merely covered or forgiven from an Old Testament standpoint they were blotted out. There is a difference between sins being covered and blotted out. Hebrews 10:14

I, too, believe there is a difference between the forgiveness of sins and the atonement of sins. A deeper question would be: Does salvation require both forgiveness and atonement?

The faith was not that of the paralyzed man? How could one prove that? For an afflicted one to be willing to have friends take him to the roof and let him down I'd say that willingness took faith.

The text specifically focuses on their faith as prompting Jesus into action.

 

[Job3315]

I disagree.

Mark 2:10-12
"But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"—he said to the paralytic— "I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go home." And he rose and immediately picked up his bed...

Clearly the point of this story is meant to go beyond the physical healing.

I think when Jesus said “your sins are forgiven” He removed the power that sin/wickedness had over the paralyric (physical healing) which was what made him sick in the first place. I think removal of sin (as in separation from God) is an act of the heart which should've happened right after the healing if the man believed Jesus is the Son of the Living God.

 

[TuxAme]

Unless the man was dragged to Jesus against his own will, I would suppose that he had asked his friends to take him to Jesus.

Though, Jesus most certainly could (and did- think of the Centurion's servant) grant someone physical healing based on the intercession (and faith) of a third party (such as the men who carried him).

 

[JIMINZ]

The faith was not that of the paralyzed man? How could one prove that? For an afflicted one to be willing to have friends take him to the roof and let him down I'd say that willingness took faith.

.
The verse says.

Mar 2:5
When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.

 

[Apex]

.
The verse says.

Mar 2:5
When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.

Perhaps, but this is not the obvious reading. Just look at the verses leading up to this v.5:

Mark 2:3-4
And they came, bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men. And when they could not get near him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him, and when they had made an opening, they let down the bed on which the paralytic lay.

In each case, "they" points to the four friends. Mark makes a clear dichotomy between the friends and the paralytic. Contextually, this draws attention to the faithful efforts these friends took to get this paralyzed man in front of Jesus.

I liked what TuxAme said in the above post. We have seen the efficacious affects of "third party faith" in other passages. As such, there is no need to die on this hill.

 

[Job3315]

Perhaps, but this is not the obvious reading. Just look at the verses leading up to this v.5:

Mark 2:3-4
And they came, bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men. And when they could not get near him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him, and when they had made an opening, they let down the bed on which the paralytic lay.

In each case, "they" points to the four friends. Mark makes a clear dichotomy between the friends and the paralytic. Contextually, this draws attention to the faithful efforts these friends took to get this paralyzed man in front of Jesus.

I liked what TuxAme said in the above post. We have seen the efficacious affects of "third party faith" in other passages. As such, there is no need to die on this hill.

Yes, you are right about the faith his friends had and agree the answer of TuxAme. What I think is the part where it says “your sins are forgiven” the forgiveness Jesus is talking about of the sins (acts ofvwickedness) that made him sick in the first place. The forgiveness of sins (as in salvation) must've come later, which is my answer to your original question.

 

[Wordkeeper]

Mark 2:5
And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven."

1. This was before Jesus' death and resurrection.
2. The faith here is not that of the paralyzed man.
3. The four friend's faith was in Jesus' ability to physically heal their paralyzed friend.

As such,

Was the paralytic immediately saved?

If so, why wasn't the paralyzed man's faith not taken into account instead?
If not, is complete forgiveness of sins not enough to gain salvation?

This is non sequitur on so many counts.

Belief is one of the responses of faith, which should be translated as loyalty. The belief of the friends was a loyal response. If they hear Jesus say His flesh needed to be eaten to be a part of Him and were offended, they would stop being loyal, and stop enjoying the benefits of faith. If the paralytic went away and did not "Go and sin no more" he would be non compliant again. The fact that Jesus needed to say the words indicate that the man COULD sin again and in doing so, fall from grace.

Do understand the whole text, and not look for simplistic readings based on cherry picking verses.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

John 9:3 "Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but ...
biblehub.com/john/9-3.htm
"It was not because of his sins or his parents' sins," Jesus answered. .... John 11:4. When Jesus heard this, He said, "This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it." 1 John 4:9

 

[Apex]

Yes, you are right about the faith his friends had and agree the answer of TuxAme. What I think is the part where it says “your sins are forgiven” the forgiveness Jesus is talking about of the sins (acts ofvwickedness) that made him sick in the first place. The forgiveness of sins (as in salvation) must've come later, which is my answer to your original question.

Your interpretation has to be read into the text. It doesn't come naturally. Is this what Mark's original audience would have understood this passage to mean?

I don't have a lot of time, so forgive me for posting a source instead of putting it in my own words:

"By inserting the dialogue about forgiveness within the healing story, Mark has made it the central emphasis. The man had not come seeking forgiveness, but had been brought in hopes of being physically healed. There is no speculation here on the theological relation of sin and sickness or the connection between healing and forgiveness (contrast John 9:1-38 and cf. James 5:15-16). Nor is there any suggestion of psychosomatic paralysis—neither Mark nor any other New Testament author thinks in such modern categories. The man does not begin to walk by receiving forgiveness; the healing is a separate act. The whole focus is on the unilateral authority of Jesus, who pronounces forgiveness unsought and unexpected. Jesus does not wait until the man realizes his guilt and asks for forgiveness; there is nothing here about subjective guilt feelings. As in 2:17, it is assumed that to be human is to be enmeshed in objective guilt, that every human being as such is in need of God’s forgiveness. While Jesus does not specifically say “I forgive you of your sins,” the passive aphientai points to God as the actor and portrays Jesus as acting in God’s stead. The scribes rightly understand that Jesus is going beyond the priestly or prophetic claim to announce God’s forgiveness (cf. 2 Sam 12:13), and in the concluding line of the story Jesus identifies himself as the Son of Man who has authority to forgive. The scene portrays God’s reconciling act in the Christ-event."

Boring, M. E. (2012). Mark: A Commentary. (C. C. Black, J. T. Carroll, & M. E. Boring, Eds.) (pp. 76–77). Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

 

[Apex]

If the paralytic went away and did not "Go and sin no more" he would be non compliant again. The fact that Jesus needed to say the words indicate that the man COULD sin again and in doing so, fall from grace.

Are we reading the same story? Jesus does not tell this to the paralytic. He does say this to the invalid at the pool of Bethesda and to the woman caught in adultery though. Either way, how does this answer my question about the man's immediate salvation status after the healing? Why does it matter if he could sin again or if he could lose his salvation?

 

[Wordkeeper]

Are we reading the same story? Jesus does not tell this to the paralytic. He does say this to the invalid at the pool of Bethesda and to the woman caught in adultery though. Either way, how does this answer my question about the man's immediate salvation status after the healing? Why does it matter if he could sin again or if he could lose his salvation?

Salvation isn't being made "made fit for Heaven'.

Maybe in the times of no Cable, and Starbucks, even ordinary people focused beyond the mundane and thought about the futility of the lives lived by them and their ancestors. Going to heaven wasn't a solution, because it didn't explain what the necessity of their earthly existence was, and it worried them that their efforts during that period resulted in treasure that perished. So the promise of eternal living, lasting living was very attractive, the fact that meaningful living would help in the world to come.

Certainly Aristotle, the Epicureans and the Stoics in Athens who Paul encountered had reflected on the issue. Those who did not were, "Living the lives not worth living, the lives spent without reflection" according to Socrates.

What Scripture called the "darkness", the life lived by animals.

 

[Bobber]

I, too, believe there is a difference between the forgiveness of sins and the atonement of sins. A deeper question would be: Does salvation require both forgiveness and atonement?

Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. Heb 9:22 These individuals in the ministry of Jesus who were healed had a faith concept in atonement from the Temple.

The text specifically focuses on their faith as prompting Jesus into action.

I don't think there's evidence to warrant that it was only the faith of the four. I know the scriptures you pointed out in a later post but still....I see no reason why it wasn't a group faith including the sick man. If it was of import for us to think that way I think it would have been even more detailed, as in, "Jesus turned to the four and said unto them" We don't see that brought forth.

 

[Hawkins]

Luke 16:16 (NIV2011)
The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing their way into it.

The New Covenant is in effect since John the Baptist. Jesus is the judge to decide whose faith deserves to be saved in accordance to the New Covenant. The verses don't seem to mention about the paralytic himself. However it is possible that it is he who insisted to come. The four also had the faith to carry him to Jesus. It says that by Jesus' judgment (as the Judge), the faith of five entitled them God's salvation.