Chapter XXV.—Of the Man Sick of the Palsy to Whom the Lord Said, “Thy Sins are Forgiven Thee,” And “Take Up Thy Bed;” And in Especial, of the Question Whether Matthew and Mark are Consistent with Each Other in Their Notice of the Place Where This Incident Took Place, in So Far as Matthew Says It Happened “In His Own City,” While Mark Says It Was in Capharnaum.

57. Hereupon Matthew proceeds with his recital, still preserving the order of time, and connects his narrative in the following manner:—“And He entered into a ship, and passed over, and came into His own city. And, behold, they brought to Him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed;” and so on down to where it is said, “But when the multitude saw it, they marvelled; and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.”412    Matt. ix. 1–8. Mark and Luke have also told the story of this paralytic. Now, as regards Matthew’s stating that the Lord said, “Son, be of good cheer, thy sins are forgiven thee;” while Luke makes the address run, not as “son,” but as “man,”—this only helps to bring out the Lord’s meaning more explicitly. For these sins were [thus said to be] forgiven to the “man,” inasmuch as the very fact that he was a man would make it impossible for him to say, “I have not sinned;” and at the same time, that mode of address served to indicate that He who forgave sins to man was Himself God. Mark, again, has given the same form of words as Matthew, but he has left out the terms, “Be of good cheer.” It is also possible, indeed, that the whole saying ran thus: “Man, be of good cheer: son, thy sins are forgiven thee;” or thus: “Son, be of good cheer: man, thy sins are forgiven thee;” or the words may have been spoken in some other congruous order.

58. A difficulty, however, may certainly arise when we observe how Matthew tells the story of the paralytic after this fashion: “And He entered into a ship, and passed over, and came into His own city. And, behold, they brought to Him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed;” whereas Mark speaks of the incident as taking place not in His own city, which indeed is called Nazareth, but in Capharnaum. His narrative is to the following effect:—“And again He entered into Capharnaum after some days; and it was noised that He was in the house. And straightway many were gathered together, insomuch that there was no room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door: and He spake a word413    Loquebatur verbum. [“Was speaking the word” is probably the meaning.—R.] unto them. And they came unto Him, bringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne of four. And when they could not come nigh unto Him for the press, they uncovered the roof where He was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay. And when Jesus saw their faith;” and so forth.414    Mark ii. 1–12. Luke, on the other hand, does not mention the place in which the incident happened, but gives the tale thus: “And it came to pass on a certain day that He was sitting teaching,415    Et ipse sedebat docens. and there were Pharisees and doctors of the law also sitting by, which were come out of every town of Galilee, and Judæa, and Jerusalem: and the power of the Lord was present to heal them. And, behold, men brought in a bed a man which was taken with a palsy: and they sought means to bring him in, and to lay him before Him. And when they could not find by what way they might bring him in because of the multitude, they went upon the house-top, and let him down through the tiling with his couch into the midst before Jesus. And when He saw their faith, He said, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee;” and so forth.416    Luke v. 17–26. The question, therefore, remains one between Mark and Matthew, in so far as Matthew writes of the incident as taking place in the Lord’s city;417    Or, state—civitate. while Mark locates it in Capharnaum. This question would be more difficult to solve if Matthew mentioned Nazareth by name. But, as the case stands, when we reflect that the state of Galilee itself might have been called Christ’s city,418    Or, state—civitas. because Nazareth was in Galilee, just as the whole region which was made up of so many cities419    Civitatibus. is yet called a Roman state;420    Civitas, city. when, further, it is considered that so many nations are comprehended in that city, of which it is written, “Glorious things are spoken of thee, O city of God;”421    Ps. lxxxvii. 3. and also that God’s ancient people, though dwelling in so many cities, have yet been spoken of as one house, the house of Israel,422    Isa. v. 7; Jer. iii. 20; Ezek. iii. 4.—who can doubt that [it may be fairly said that] Jesus wrought this work in His own city [or, state], inasmuch as He did it in the city of Capharnaum, which was a city of that Galilee to which He had returned when He crossed over again from the country of the Gerasenes, so that when He came into Galilee He might correctly be said to have come into His own city [or, state], in which ever town of Galilee He might happen to be? This explanation may be vindicated more particularly on the ground that Capharnaum itself held a position of such eminence in Galilee that it was reckoned to be a kind of metropolis. But even were it altogether illegitimate to take the city of Christ in the sense either of Galilee itself, in which Nazareth was situated, or of Capharnaum, which was distinguished as in a certain sense the capital of Galilee, we might still affirm that Matthew has simply passed over all that happened after Jesus came into His own city until He reached Capharnaum, and that he has simply tacked on the narrative of the healing of the paralytic at this point; just as the writers do in many instances, leaving unnoticed much that intervenes, and, without any express indication of the omissions they are making, proceeding precisely as if what they subjoin, followed actually in literal succession.423    [The true solution of the difficulty is simple. Our Lord had already left Nazareth and made Capernaum His headquarters (comp. Luke iv. 30, 31). But Augustin identifies that incident with a subsequent visit to Nazareth (see ch. xlii.).—R.]

CAPUT XXV. De paralytico cui dixit, Dimittuntur tibi peccata, et, Tolle grabatum tuum, maxime utrum locus ubi hoc factum est, conveniat inter Matthaeum et Marcum; quia Matthaeus dicit in civitate sua, Marcus autem in Capharnaum.

57. Hinc ergo sequitur Matthaeus, adhuc temporum ordinem servans, atque ita narrationem contexit: Et ascendens in naviculam transfretavit, et venit in civitatem suam. Et ecce offerebant ei paralyticum jacentem in lecto, etc., usque ad illud quod ait, Videntes autem turbae, timuerunt et glorificaverunt Deum, qui dedit postestatem talem hominibus (Matth. IX, 1-8). De hoc paralytico dixerunt etiam Marcus et Lucas. Quod ergo Matthaeus dicit Dominum dixisse, Confide, fili, dimittuntur tibi peccata tua; Lucas autem non dixit, Fili, sed, homo, ad sententiam Domini expressius insinuandam valet: quia homini dimittebantur peccata, qui hoc ipso quod homo erat, non posset dicere, Non peccavi; simul etiam ut ille qui homini dimittebat, intelligeretur Deus. Marcus autem hoc dixit quod et Matthaeus; sed non dixit, Confide. Potuit quidem et ita dici: Confide, homo; dimittuntur tibi peccata, fili: aut, Confide, fili; dimittuntur tibi peccata, homo; aut quolibet verborum ordine congruenti.

58. Illud sane potest movere, quod de isto paralytico Matthaeus ita narrat: Et ascendens in naviculam transfretavit, et venit in civitatem suam. Et ecce offerebant ei paralyticum jacentem in lecto: Marcus autem non hoc in ejus civitate factum dicit, quae utique Nazareth vocatur, sed in Capharnaum; quod ita narrat: Et iterum intravit in Capharnaum post dies: et auditum est quod in domo esset; et convenerunt multi, ita ut non caperet neque ad januam: et loquebatur eis verbum. Et venerunt ferentes ad eum paralyticum, qui a quatuor portabatur. Et cum non possent offerre eum illi prae turba, nudaverunt tectum ubi erat, et patefacientes submiserunt grabatum in quo paralyticus jacebat. Cum vidisset autem Jesus fidem illorum, etc. (Marc. II, 1-12) Lucas autem non commemorat quo in loco factum sit, sed ita dicit: Et factum est in una dierum, et ipse sedebat docens: et erant Pharisaei sedentes, et legis doctores, qui venerant ex omni castello Galilaeae et Judaeae et Jerusalem: et virtus erat Domini ad sanandos eos. Et ecce viri portantes in lecto hominem qui erat paralyticus, et quaerebant eum inferre, et ponere ante eum: et non invenientes qua parte illum inferrent prae turba, ascenderunt supra tectum, et per tegulas submiserunt illum cum lecto in medium ante Jesum. Quorum fidem ut vidit, dixit: Homo, remittuntur tibi peccata tua, etc. (Luc. V, 17-26). Remanet igitur quaestio inter 1106 Marcum et Matthaeum, quod Matthaeus ita scribit, tanquam in civitate Domini factum sit, Marcus autem in Capharnaum. Quae difficilius solveretur, si Matthaeus etiam Nazareth nominaret: nunc vero cum potuerit ipsa Galilaea dici civitas Christi, quia in Galilaea erat Nazareth: sicut universum regnum in tot civitatibus constitutum, dicitur Romana civitas; cumque in tot gentibus constituta civitas sit, de qua scriptum est, Gloriosissima dicta sunt de te, civitas Dei (Psal. LXXXVI, 3); et cum ipse prior populus Dei in tot civitatibus habitans, etiam una domus dictus sit domus Israel (Isai. V, 7; Jerem. III, 20, et Ezech. III, 4): quis dubitaverit in civitate sua hoc fecisse Jesum, cum hoc fecerit in civitate Capharnaum civitate Galilaeae, quo transfretando redierat de regione Gerasenorum, ut veniens in Galilaeam, recte diceretur venisse in civitatem suam, in quocumque oppido esset Galilaeae; praesertim quia et ipsa Capharnaum ita excellebat in Galilaea, ut tanquam metropolis haberetur? Quod si prorsus non liceret accipere civitatem Christi, vel ipsam Galilaeam, in qua erat Nazareth, vel ipsam Capharnaum, quae sicut caput Galilaeae civitatibus eminebat; diceremus Matthaeum praetermisisse quae gesta sunt, posteaquam venit Jesus in civitatem suam, donec veniret Capharnaum, et hoc adjunxisse de sanato paralytico: sicut in multis ita faciunt, praetermittentes media, tanquam hoc continuo sequatur, quod sine ulla praetermissionis suae significatione subjungunt.