Mark 2:7 – Who can forgive sins but God alone?
by Paul Williams
Who can forgive sins but God alone? An interesting take on this verse by a Unitarian Christian. Surprisingly the speaker does not mention Matthew’s version of this story: ‘When the crowds saw it, they were filled with awe, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to human beings.’ So Matthew 9 is clear that Jesus was not claiming divinity despite what Jesus’ enemies were falsely claiming: Jesus as a man had been given this authority by God. In other gospel passages the disciples also share in this same authority.
What’s interesting is that Mark usually has the harder readings. I wonder why it doesn’t this time?
Thealkitab, do you have an idea why Mark has the ‘harder’ ending?
I think that Mark’s original readers already knew the traditions of Jesus’ appearances, and that Mark highlights the resurrection and leaves it hanging for this reason. Its also possibly a literary technique. If they told no one how do we know?
Do you see how in Matthew 9 it is clear that Jesus was not claiming divinity (despite what Jesus’ enemies were falsely claiming) and that Jesus was a man had been given this authority by God?
He did not invoke God’s name or entreat God for the power to heal therefore he must be God.
He also breathed the Holy Spirit upon the disciples. He could only do this if he was God himself.
He would never have said to the multitudes “I am God” because he did not reveal who he was to the multitudes. They were blinded to the truth. So he could not accept worship from them. It is clear that Jesus never wanted to be worshipped by the “multitudes” during his earthly sojourn.
I don’t agree that it is clear at all. I’m fact I think the conclusion – God has given the ability to man and Jesus wasn’t God is the opposite to what Matthew intended.
You’re forgetting that the gospels are Greco-Roman biography. Matthew is making a literary point. His readers would be thinking but only God CAN forgive sins. Matthew is using rhetoric and irony here.
The scribes correctly understood that Jesus was claiming to have the ability to forgive sins committed against God. However both scribes and the ‘people’ were wrong! The teachers of the law in their assumption that Jesus was blaspheming since they erroneously felt that Christ was merely a man and not God who had become flesh and the people were wrong for assuming that such ability was given to men in general.
It never dawned on them that the person standing before them was God in the flesh, which explains why they came to their conclusions. Given that Matthew has a far more overt Christology than Mark I think that this is the best conclusion – as any exegesis also needs to explain WHY Matthew has the harder reading.
‘He did not invoke God’s name or entreat God for the power to heal therefore he must be God.’
There are other possibilities:
1) He did call on God but it was not recorded by the evangelist
2) He did so in his heart and not out loud so no one heard
3) According to Peter: ‘Jesus of Nazareth was a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as you yourselves know’ Acts 2:22
4) Mark 8 says:
And they brought a blind man to Jesus and implored Him to touch him. Taking the blind man by the hand, He brought him out of the village; and after spitting on his eyes and laying His hands on him, He asked him, “Do you see anything?” And he looked up and said, “I see men, for I see them like trees, walking around.”Then again He laid His hands on his eyes; and he looked intently and was restored, and began to see everything clearly. And He sent him to his home, saying, “Do not even enter the village.”
Does God need to spit and ask “do you see anything?”
Of course not.
‘He would never have said to the multitudes “I am God” because he did not reveal who he was to the multitudes. They were blinded to the truth. So he could not accept worship from them. It is clear that Jesus never wanted to be worshipped by the “multitudes” during his earthly sojourn.’
This is incoherent and contradictory.
you argue:
* Jesus did not say he was God to the multitudes
* They were blind to the truth – but how could they know the truth if Jesus did not tell them?!
* Therefore he did not want to be worshiped!
But surely he would have told someone who he was? What was the point of his ministry if he didn’t tell anyone about his divinity? And what about all those ‘I am’ statements in John? Dont you believe Jesus is claiming to be divine there?
‘Matthew is using rhetoric and irony here.’
You make a huge assumption here and you claim to have access to the authors intentions. You must have supernatural powers! lol.
Your exegesis is arbitrary and designed to prop up your theology. You forget (!) that Matthew tells us the pious crowds ‘were filled with awe, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to human beings.’ This is the final verse in this story and clearly for Matthew this exclamation of praise to God sums up the truth about Jesus and his delegated powers. They have the last word.
I agree that most of the time Matthew ‘has a far more overt Christology than Mark’ – so, to that extent has Matthew moved way from the historical Jesus? And ditto for John with his very high Christology? Do you think John’s christology is as historical as Mark’s?
“Your exegesis is arbitrary and designed to prop up your theology. ”
I’ve demonstrated why Matthew has the harder reading. I’ve also read the periscope in its context, with its audience and genre. The onus is on you to demonstrate an exegesis which can take account of these facts.
After all my exegesis explains all 5 Main events in the text :
1)how jesus can claim that he(the son of man) has authorty to forgive sins
2)why he was accused of blasphemy
3)why the crowd said that god had given authorty to men
4) why why matthew presents a harder reading than mark! I
5)audience intention and genre
In a consistent and non adhoc way. With respect your exegetical approach doesn’t come close to dealing with these five facts.
As for my making a:
“huge assumption … claim(ing) to have access to the authors intentions”
Do you not do it here-
“clearly for Matthew this exclamation of praise to God sums up the truth about Jesus and his delegated powers. They have the last word.”
It is afterall a standard part of hermeneutics.
Ill address the issue of overtness of christology if/when you explain the elephant in the room of why Matthew has the harder reading?
Paul :”And what about all those ‘I am’ statements in John? Dont you believe Jesus is claiming to be divine there? ”
Yes I do. Or should I say he is affirming his divine nature.
So the addition of the word God is not necessary. I AM is sufficient without the word God on the end.
Seems that it was used mostly in a relational sense anyway in the Old Testament. I am the Lord thy God or I am the God of Abraham, God of Gods and Lord of Lords, for example.
I am saying that the truth was revealed to those whom he chose to be his disciples. I my view it was never his will to create a popular movement or following.
Thealkitab you seem obsessed by this point:
‘ll address the issue of overtness of christology if/when you explain the elephant in the room of why Matthew has the harder reading?’
I frankly don’t see what you are getting at, and your earlier explanation was far from clear. Why not have another go…
Alzon, 99% of NT scholars would doubt Jesus ever said those ‘I am’ sayings attributed to him in John. Do you know why they reached that conclusion?
Well Paul it proves that a harder reading doesn’t necessarily mean a lower christolgy.
true but it often does…each saying in Mk and Lk/Matt needs to be looked at on its own merits. Matthew tends to ‘improve’ Mark and downplay ‘embarrassing’ human weaknesses in his portrayal of Jesus. At the opposite end of the spectrum John exalts Jesus to divinity.
What is your take on the discourses of Jesus in John?
Alzon, 99% of NT scholars would doubt Jesus ever said those ‘I am’ sayings attributed to him in John. Do you know why they reached that conclusion?
Paul, the answer is because they are fools.
why are they fools?
Jesus could have said “I am God Almighty, worship me”. That statement would have excluded the Father and the Holy Spirit as also being God so it would have been a true and a false statement at the same time.
Why does only John record these sayings? I don’t know. That’s how God wanted it to be.
‘Why does only John record these sayings? I don’t know. That’s how God wanted it to be.’
OK – but how do you know God wanted it to be?
‘Jesus could have said “I am God Almighty, worship me”. That statement would have excluded the Father and the Holy Spirit as also being God so it would have been a true and a false statement at the same time.’
Jesus could have easily said ‘I am God the Son’ and avoided all of these problems…
God bless alzon and Paul Williams. I am learning a lot from you guys. Keep it up. God guide us all.
Re:Paul Oh I agree that if we are doing a historical critical study we can’t interpret in light of other texts but the Synoptics are different because of there dependency. For example Luke has a more overt christology than Matthew and Mark but Luke keeps the periscope about “why do you call me good” the same. Text doesn’t have meaning its given meaning by the reader and I hold the original reader wouldn’t read the text the way you do.
Having said that theology isn’t created just by a historical critical reading of the text. The I AMs may still be **theologically** true even if they’re not historically true. I’d say the same thing of the Quran as
None of this of course precludes insperation or theological usefulness.
Now about John. I don’t think Johns discourses go back to the historical jesus “word for word”. I think the original readers of john knew this as well. However I don’t think the case against authenticity of some johanne sayings is as strong as is often stated. I don’t think John made text and narrative out of “whole cloth”. You only need to the Johanne thunderbolt and sections of Matthew (7 woes) to see that Jesus does sometimes talk that way. I also think that every element in John is found in the Synoptics. A view which is controversial but relitivly undiscussed.
Again none of this precludes insperation or theological usefulness. Johanne christology can be true even if its not “historically” true.
‘I hold the original reader wouldn’t read the text the way you do.’
Absolutely right. There is no reason to suppose that readers of Matthew or Luke were aware that these gospels consisted of a revision of Mark plus Q and other material. But we are in the privileged position of being able to compare the three synoptic gospels and see the literary relationship between them.
This literary relationship – Mark using Matt/Lk – enable us to see how the later gospels modified/altered and changed Mark to further their own agendas and how the Christology in Mark has undergone a noticeable change and ‘improvement’ in the process.
I agree with the judicious assessment of Professor Christopher Tuckett of Oxford University
‘In terms simply of historical reliability or ‘authenticity’, it seems impossible to maintain that both John and the synoptics can be presenting us with equally ‘authentic’ accounts of Jesus‘ own life. (By ‘authentic’ accounts I mean here historically accurate representations of what Jesus himself actually said and did. The theological ’authenticity’ of John’s account is quite another matter). The differences between the two are too deep-seated and wide-ranging for such a position to be sustainable. If there is a choice, it is almost certainly to be made in favour of the synoptic picture, at least in broadly general terms. The Johannine picture then presents us with a view of the Jesus tradition which has been heavily coloured and influenced by John and his own situation.’
(Christology and the New Testament pp.151-152, in chapter 9: ‘The Gospel of John’.)
The history of religions teaches us that people are adept at turning individuals into what they never were. In antiquity, Enoch, who according to the book of Genesis was the son of Cain, eventually morphed into Metatron, the occupant of God’s throne. At least this is what we are invited to believe in the Old Testament Apocryphal book of Enoch.
In the seventh century AD the Muslim Caliph Ali, the cousin and son-in-law of the Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace), was thought by a few extremists to be the incarnation of Allah, a trend he vigorously opposed.
In our own time, the Rastafarians transformed Haile Selassie, even during his lifetime and without any encouragement from him, into “the lion of the tribe of Judah,” their Messiah, and an incarnation of God.
So history shows us that the religious imagination has again and again piled layer upon layer of legend upon its heroes and saints. I could mention other significant religious figures such as The Buddha and the Virgin Mary, to whom prayer and worship are both given today. Tuckett has provided us with abundant evidence that the early Christians did something similar with Jesus of Nazareth.
The prophet Muhammad was alert to this human tendency to divinise saints and holy men.
He said:
“Do not over-praise me as the Christians over-praised Jesus the son of Mary. I am His slave, so say: ‘God’s slave and messenger’”
Narrated by both Al-Bukhari and Muslim