You may need this one
This is my own personal interpretation of one of the stories about Jesus. I have not heard this interpretation of this passage before. I wasn't going to publish it, because I'm rather unsure about my idea on this (since it does SEEM to contradict some of the statements in the passage), and because I think that the Lord generally wants to give revelations to each of us individually to let us know how much He loves us.
But I'm putting this interpretation out there for you to agree or disagree with, and maybe to be encouraged with:
Jesus was in a crowded house, teaching and healing. Four friends brought their bedridden friend to Jesus. They had to climb up on the roof, break open the roof, and lower their friend and his mat down to Jesus cuz' that was the only way they could think of to get friend to Jesus for healing.
The one who told the story, Matthew?, called the man "paralyzed" and said Jesus healed him. And maybe that was what happened. BUT Jesus' words in this case were: to the man lying on the mat, "Your sins have been forgiven."; To the crowd, especially His critics and enemies, "which is easier to say: 'your sins are forgiven'? or 'get up and walk'? But so that you may know that the Son of man has authority to heal-, (to the paralyzed man AND for the benefit of the crowd) get up, take up your mat and walk."
So I notice here that Jesus does not specifically say, "Be healed." He DOES refer to His authority to heal and how important that is as a sign of God's confirmation of what Jesus has claimed about Himself.
So I'd like to put forward my thinking in this. What if the man was not actually paralyzed? What if the man was just pretending to be paralyzed? Or partly pretending? We have heard of that sort of thing going on in more recent times. Maybe it was a possibility then, also.
So, if the man, in truth, was not paralyzed , but was faking it, he would have known whether or not Jesus knew the truth of the situation and his heart by what Jesus said. He personally would not have been convinced of Jesus' specialness if Jesus had simply said "Be healed!" when in truth what the man needed was to be truly known and forgiven. The man's heart would have remained untouched by Jesus. But, by making His first words to the man "your sins are forgiven", Jesus signaled to the man that He knew what the reality was and did this without "outing " the man. Indeed, if Jesus had tried to tell the crowd "Hey people, this man is faking!" The man would have had really bad feelings toward Jesus on account of Jesus making him look bad in the eyes of the community. Plus, this would have left the power in the situation in the hands of that man. He later could have- since he personally had not experienced Jesus' supernatural power- "relapsed " and said Jesus' healing didn't last! (Oops! That's not exactly right, is it? I said something that was not logical conclusion to previous two sentences. But let's continue.) If the man WAS a faker, Jesus saying what He did say was proof to the man that Jesus could read his heart, which is a supernatural thing just as healing is.
The way I came to this idea about the man brought to Jesus by his four friends was: 1)I was taught to carefully read the story of each of Jesus' recorded healings and to appreciate that Jesus healed each individual differently according to what they needed in order to receive His gift and according to the particular situation; 2) I had been studying with my neighbor Sister Kim's group about another healing that Jesus had done; and that other healing was quite different in its particulars from the one in telling of now.
The other healing is of a woman who was in a crowd around Jesus, who needed healing, but was too ashamed or scared to come out and ask Jesus to heal her. So she secretly touched Jesus' coat while holding the thought that THAT would be the way she could be healed. Well, she WAS healed by touching Jesus' coat, but Jesus would not (in that case) let it be a secret, anonymous healing. He said, "Who touched My garment?"
Why did He do that?
Sister Kim had put much thought into that story, considering the afflicted woman who was healed. She came to the conclusion that Jesus wanted the healing to be public for two reasons: 1) So the woman would not feel that she had "stolen" a healing that "belonged" to another, but rather that healing was truly for her! (Because God loves her.) and, 2) Jesus wanted to help her draw close again to her community after her having been shut out of "polite society" (she could not attend any temple services with the ailment she was afflicted with. I don't know what else she could not do.)
