This sentence certainly presents some important difficulties to expositors for its justification. We at once avoid endeavouring to find the suitable key in the Jewish exposition of the relation between sin and sickness. The opinion also held and applied, that he who takes away the punishment of the sin possesses also at the same time the power of freeing from the guilt of it, is one really satisfactory to no one. The evident trouble which Bleek takes (Synops. i. p. 379) to make it understood in this manner, was just as much in vain as the acuteness which Hofmann (Schriftbeweis, i. p. 601 and foll.) has applied to the same purpose. That the Jews have maintained a close connection between sin and suffering, is just as certain as that their method of exposition contains at bottom a real truth. But that this connection is intended to be referred to in the passage before us, we dispute on the ground of the teaching of Jesus Himself, who in John ix. 3 expressly wishes it to be left out of consideration. We must therefore seek it in some other way. Whoever has remarked the change, not casual and indifferent, between the expressions λaleïv, eiπeîv, and Aéyew, must be inclined to pursue this line of thought, especially as the accusation of the Pharisees against Jesus consisted in this, that He had spoken out a blasphemy, λαλεῖ βλασφημίας (by the λαλεῖν is understood a thoughtless, frivolous way of speaking), and as our Lord Himself afterwards completes the cure by means of a σοὶ λέγω (the λέγειν being a manner of speaking with authority and power). Still on this the real point of difficulty cannot rest; for when the question of Christ runs thus: Which is easier to say (eiπeîv), Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Take up thy bed and walk?' the one expression of the mouth is as easy to pronounce as the other.' The evкодάтероv does not relate therefore to the speaking itself, but to the deed intended by the word, to the result happening in consequence of it. Which is easier to say with effect, 'Thy sins are forgiven thee;' or to speak with result, 'Rise up and walk'? But what answer could they make to it? The embarrassment which ensues necessitates us to examine more closely the expression εὔκοπος. Even from the purely philological point of view, the present translation of it can hardly be acknowledged as sufficient. EUKOTOS is something different from ǎкOTOS. "AKOTOS is, indeed, that which does not fatigue ἄκοπος. ('light work') (it is also used passively in the sense of 'unwearied'); but evкoπos forms rather in classical Greek (especially in Polybius), as well as also in the Old Testament Apocrypha, the opposite to adúvatos, it signifies the possible (by no means the easily possible). Let us compare the instructive passage, 1 Maccabees iii. 18. Judas replied to the apprehensions expressed by his little company as to how they should fight with so strong an army: εὔκοπόν ἐστι συγκλεισθῆναι πολλοὺς ἐν xepoìv oxíywv—that is, it is not impossible, a possibility does exist, that a few can conquer a great multitude. Further, in the New Testament—that is, in the gospel -we meet with the expression only in the formula εÙкожάτEρÓV Éστ with a comparison following it. But even with this comparison it has in each instance a peculiar application. When our Lord, after meeting the rich young man, says to his disciples, evкоπúтepóv εὐκοπώτερόν 1 Bleek enters his protest against this. He asserts that there certainly is a difference in the expression of both enunciations. It would really be easier to say, 'Thy sins be forgiven thee,' than to say, 'Stand up and walk.' But it has happened to this exegetist, who usually sees so clearly, that he has unwittingly used the expression 'easy' in quite a different sense from the one applicable here,—in a sense which the Greek εὔκοπος cannot possibly have. OT, 'that a camel should go through the eye of a needle, than that a rich man should enter the kingdom of heaven;' or when He (Luke xvi. 17) says to the Pharisees, εύκοπώτερόν ἐστιν, ' that heaven and earth should pass away, than one tittle of the law should fail,' the comparison in each instance seems to fade from the sight, for the eye sees rather two impracticable things placed one beside the other; and it is in showing the impossibility of the one, that is manifested the impossibility of the other. But these things placed parallel to each other belong to two different regions: the one to the sensual, the other to the spiritual. The camel through the needle's eye, the passing away of heaven and earth, the walking of the paralytic,—all these occur in the sphere of nature, and would appear to the outward view. On the other hand, the riches of the kingdom of heaven, the failing of the law, the forgiveness of sins, all relate to the ordering of God in the spiritual kingdom, and cannot be perceived by the bodily eye. From this, the conception of the question of our Lord, that He laid before the Pharisees an alternative on which they had to decide, 'How think ye, which of the two is most possible?' will appear unacceptable to us. But even the text itself opposes such a conception; for the words immediately following, ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε, exclude the supposition of a pause requiring an answer. We have, in fact, only the form of the question. Jesus in reality only demands them to consider; to consider, so as to be led immediately to the certain result, that both are equally impossible to human powers, and are solely in the power of God1 Himself, and of Him to whom He has given the same 1 In the parallel passage (Luke xviii. 25) we see therefore this 'it is easier' immediately followed by the expression, 'The things which are impossible with men are possible with God;' 'there is nothing impossible with God.' God is the God who doeth wonders. govoía; to consider thereupon the force of the question,' whether He who performed before their eyes in the natural region that which was alone possible to God, did not at once thereby prove Himself the One who in the higher region could also act with divine power. We see now the whole matter. The Pharisees had concluded that 'He spoke blasphemously in saying, Thy sins are forgiven thee; as He is not able to forgive sins, for God alone can do that.' And our Lord answers, 'You ought also in the same manner to judge, if I say to the sick of the palsy, Stand up and walk; for he does rise up and walk, that also God alone can effect. But in order that you may know that I have announced forgiveness of sins by my divine power, you thus see with what result I speak, Stand up and walk.' This result proves that His summons to the sick of the palsy was no empty phrase; but it proves also, further, that His former announcement to him had been in the name of God,, from whom He had received the govoía to make both body and soul whole. By this is explained also the evidently emphasized clause 'on earth' in the 10th verse. If Jesus announces the forgiveness of sins by virtue of the divinely received ovoía; the word, if even spoken on earth, is honoured before God and in heaven (Matt. xvi. 19, xviii. 18), the guilt is certainly and really taken away; there will be no more mention of it in eternity. However, we seek something still further in this clause. It seems to us as if it was intended to show the earth as just the spot on which the heavenly treasures hitherto promised will be spread abroad. The forgiveness of sins was under the Old Testament only an object of promise, the fulfilment of 1 This question, so placed, we consider as the true contents of the 9th verse in an interrogative form. which was looked forward to with eager longing: Now shall a race dwell on the earth who shall be freed from the burden of guilt. In Jesus this treasure of treasures is opened; this is what the narrative before us shows. But thereby are we brought back to our former consideration. It has been said, that our Lord from the beginning intended the cure of the paralytic; and that even His first call to the sick man teaches us to consider the miracle intended by Him from the right point of view. At the same time, it is also to be But this remarked that He makes use of the incident of the suspicion of the Pharisees in order to place this point of view in a still brighter light. It will now have become clear in what sense this last assertion is meant by us, and with what justice we have used it. If the refutation of the scribes thus happens, so that they would feel themselves necessitated to follow on from what was perceptible to the senses to that which was spiritual, the conviction would lead to the effect in which the one appears related to the other. connection can here be no other than that resting on the relation of the symbol to the thing symbolized. If our Lord proves, by telling with effect the sick of the palsy to rise up and walk, His power to announce effectively and authoritatively the forgiveness of sins, He has thereby placed the healing of the sick man, the taking away of his lameness, as a symbol of the power which the Father has given Him to free men from the disabling pressure of their burden of sins. It does not matter as to the degree in which those immediately present acknowledged the true significance of the symbol. The account of the evangelist, that they acknowledged they had 'seen strange things,' that they were 'amazed,' does not exclude a deeper comprehension of the deed; but the narrative of Matthew, |