As I was looking further into online resources about Jesus forgiving the paralytic’s sins, I stumbled upon a video where Daniel Johannson not only defends his interpretation of the pericope in Mark as unparalleled and in support of a high Christology but also attributes both the act and what he sees as its full significance back to the historical Jesus. In the last post I wrote on how I am not necessarily convinced that this action needs to go beyond the Jewish conception of agency, but check out the link below and feel free to continue the discussion in the comments.
Reference is often made in this context to certain “indirect claims” to divine authority made by Jesus. One wonders, if these claims are admittedly indirect, why apologists feel so free to use them as direct and unambiguous evidence! Surely the favorite is Jesus’ “claim to forgive sins” in Mark 2:1-12. For instance, Pinnock writes: “The claims of Jesus were not all direct ones. His assumption of the right to pronounce forgiveness shocked the onlookers (Mark 2:7).” [7] John R. W. Stott says that “The claim to deity advanced by our Lord was made as forcefully by indirect as by direct means. ..The first is the claim to forgive sins.” [8] It is remarkable that apologists find themselves agreeing with the interpretation, if not the evaluation, of the “bad guys” of the passage, i.e., that Jesus is claiming to be God. “From this [i.e., the scribes'] response it seems clear that the most obvious interpretation of Jesus’ words in Mark 2:5 is that they imply use of his own divine authority.” [9] Stott agrees that: “the bystanders raised their eyebrows and asked, `Who is this? What blasphemy is this? Who can forgive sins but God only?’ Their questions were correctly worded.” [10] Aren’t these apologists aware of the New Testament writers’ recording of the opponents’ misinterpretation of Jesus’ words to use it as a springboard to set forth the true interpretation? For instance, do the apologists agree with the scribes that in allowing his disciples to glean wheat, Jesus is “doing what is illegal on the Sabbath” (Mark 2:24)? But at any rate, let us return to the text at hand.
A paralytic is brought to Jesus to be healed. Jesus pronounces that his sins are forgiven and goes on to demonstrate his authority to do this by healing the man. The idea is that the man had been stricken with paralysis for some sins he had committed (cf. John 5:14). For Jesus to have lifted the penalty (i.e., cured the paralysis), he must have been able to absolve the sins that caused it. But is Jesus in effect claiming to be God by doing this, as the scribes think? Not necessarily, any more than Paul and Barnabas are claiming to be Hermes and Zeus by healing the Lycaonian cripple in Acts 14:11. Perhaps the scribes, like the Lycaonians, are jumping to conclusions. Jesus’ reply, like that of Paul and Barnabas, may be an attempt to correct the mistaken assumptions of his hearers.
Geza Vermes, in his book Jesus the Jew calls attention to a document from Qumran which sheds some light on the religious context of the debate we see in the Marcan passage. In “The Prayer of Nabonidus,” the stricken king relates how a human agent (Daniel) cured his ulcers when he “pardoned my sins.” [11] Jesus then seems not to have been alone in his belief that human beings (“the son of man”) have authority on earth to forgive sins. The scribes in the Marcan passage represent the opposing viewpoint which considered this tantamount to blasphemy whether said by Jesus or other sectarians. It should be noted that in the Matthean version the conclusion of the whole incident is in accord with this understanding. The crowd rejoices, not because Jesus’ divine authority has been vindicated, but because “God…had given such authority to men” (9:8). Here, as in other passages such as Mark 2:27-28 and Matthew 12:32, “son of man” may be best understood in its generic sense of “man” or “mankind.” Jesus’ declaration in the Marcan text under consideration (“the son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins”) is parallel in ideas to a text from Psalms 115:16. “The heavens are the Lord’s, but the earth he has given to the sons of men.” Also cf. this hadith of the Prophet Muhammad, “The son of man has no more right than that he should have a house wherein he may live, and a piece of cloth whereby he may hide his nakedness, and a chip of bread, and water.” [12] That is, earth is the sphere of man’s proper function, where in this case he may even pronounce God’s pardon for sin. Notice, incidentally, the “divine passive” – “Your sins are forgiven,” i.e., “God forgives your sins.” Jesus is not exactly saying “I take it upon myself to forgive your sins.”
Let us assume, however, that the “Son of Man” reference here was originally meant by Jesus as a messianic self-designation, as is certainly intended at least in Mark’s redaction. In this case Jesus would probably be defending his own private prerogative. Yet this would still not mean he is “indirectly claiming” to be God. The scribes may charge him with this, but Jesus’ rejoinder could be understood not as, “You’re right! God alone can forgive sins, but it’s OK since I happen to be God.” Rather he counters with the claim that God has delegated authority to someone else, i.e., the Son of Man, to forgive sins on earth, so that he is not usurping God’s authority. It is not “God alone,” therefore, who forgives sins. In a similar manner, Jesus is reported to have delegated to the disciples the authority to forgive sins (John 20:23). Yet I know of no apologist who understands this to mean the disciples were God!
In this idea of delegated authority we have an important distinction that is conveniently ignored by Evangelical apologists. It is no secret that in Jewish apocalyptic the Messiah was, so to speak, the vice-regent of God. He was to be God’s representative on earth, acting in God’s stead. This is quite a different thing from the Messiah being God. It seems to me that the arguments appealing to Jesus’ assumption of divine prerogatives (e.g. Jesus claim one day to judge the world in Matthew 7:21-23) ignore this crucial distinction.
These exegetical suggestions on passages like Mark 2:1-12 are not hereby proven to be superior to the interpretation offered by the apologists. But when passages such as this one admit of several other viable interpretations it is illegitimate for apologists to use them as unambiguous evidence that Jesus “claimed to be God.” http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/beyond_born_again/chap7.html
Healing the Paralytic (2:1-12)
As Roth (p. 56) shows, this story of a paralyzed man’s friends tearing the thatch off a roof and lowering him to Jesus amid the crowd seems to be based on an Elijah story in 2 Kings 1:2-17a, where King Ahaziah gains his affliction by falling from his roof through the lattice and languishes in bed. Mark’s sufferer is already afflicted when he descends through the roof on his bed (pallet). He rises from his bed because whatever sin of his had earned him the divine judgment of paralysis was now pronounced forgiven on account of his friends’ faith, though nothing is said of his own. King Ahaziah is pointedly not healed of his affliction because of his own pronounced lack of faith in the God of Israel: he had sent to the priests of the Philistine oracle god Baal-zebub to inquire as to his prospects. Elijah tells him he is doomed because of unbelief, a dismal situation reversed by Mark, who has Jesus grant forgiveness and salvation because of faith. Mark has preserved the Baal-zebub element for use in a later story (3:22).
Wolfgang Roth, Hebrew Gospel: Cracking the Code of Mark. Oak Park: Meyer-Stone Books, 1988.
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_midrash1.htm
Illness theodicies in the NT, the case of the paralytics in John and Mark
The second approach to theodicy we meet in the New Testament is the notion that God has inflicted the illness to punish or chastise. Though this idea is very distasteful to many modern religious believers, this predisposition should not be allowed to obscure the meaning of various texts. For instance, the story of the invalid at the healing shrine of Bethesda (John 5:1 15) concludes with Jesus’ warning to the man who has disobeyed him and spread the news of the miracle, causing trouble for Jesus. “See, you are well again. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you, ” Jesus warns with visible irritation. Clearly this is a warning, if not an actual threat, to the effect that sin brings divine reprisal in the form of illness. We are probably dealing with the same belief in Mark 2:1 12, where Jesus absolves the sins of the paralytic lowered to him through a hole in the thatched roof. Modern readers are surprised to read the words, “Son, your sins are forgiven” (v. 5), since surely this was not the paralytic’s request. But the ensuing developments imply that the forgiveness is a necessary step preliminary to the healing. It seems to be taken for granted that the man had been stricken with paralysis for some sin(s), which Jesus now forgives. The punishment is then naturally lifted, just as surely as a paroled criminal is shortly released from jail. Jesus’ subsequent healing of the man is then no arbitrary wonder intended to silence his critics by “bowling them over” (in that case he might as well have pulled a rabbit from a hat! ). Rather, his healing miracle serves to settle the question of his authority to forgive sins because of the organic link between sin and illness, and thus between forgiveness and healing. Some readers may be tempted to dispute this exegesis by pointing to two favorite texts elsewhere in the New Testament: John 9:3, where Jesus denies that a case of blindness is due to sin, and Luke 13:1 5, when Jesus rejects the notion that certain political and disaster victims’ fates resulted from their wickedness. It hardly need be said that the teaching of Lucan and Johannine texts cannot control our reading of Mark. But these texts are of interest to our discussion in their own right. In the case of John 9:3 we need only note that only a particular case of blindness is at issue. No statement at all is made about blindness or illness in general. And recall John 5:14, where illness is clearly ascribed to sin. (We will return to this story below. ) As for Luke 13:1 5, we suggest that the assumptions of the story may be very different than usually supposed. True, Jesus’ words must mean that the famous Galileans and Jerusalemites were not greater sinners than most simply because their deaths were more spectacular. But is to say this to reject the whole idea of divine visitation in wrath? Luke would not have thought so; cf. Acts 5:1 11, where Ananias and Sapphira are dramatically stricken dead for their hypocrisy! And the immediate context makes it obvious that Jesus’ whole point is to warn his hearers that their fate will be as bad as that of the Galileans and Jerusalemites since their wickedness is just as great: “Unless you repent, you too will all perish” (vv. 3 and 5). We are to understand not that those already dead were not more guilty, but rather that Jesus’ hearers were not more innocent! The parable which immediately follows makes Jesus’ (or Luke’s) intention clear; it is a warning of the coming judgment on Israel. And it is no accident that the two particular examples of verses 1 and 4 have been chosen. Death at the hands of the Romans and under collapsing buildings are both in the offing for unrepentant Jerusalem (Luke 21:6, 20, 24). Far from militating against our second New Testament theodicy, this passage may better be seen as another instance of it.
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_illness.htm
On a side note, Mark says “they made an opening in the roof above Jesus by digging through it:” to lower the paralyzed man, implying a thatched roof, the typical roof in Palestine (aside from large Romanized cities in Palestine, which Jesus did not visit). Luke changed the thatched roof to a “tile” roof in his retelling.
I also suspect that John’s tale of the paralytic healed by the pool is a later retelling of the healing story in the synoptics.
Lots of stuff you have given me here to digest, Ed, and there is much I can agree. I think you may indeed be right that this may be a divine passive (your sins are forgiven by God) or, even if Jesus does forgive the sins, that Jesus as God’s agent is delegated authority to forgive on earth on God’s behalf while those hostile to Jesus see him usurping this authority. Also you make a good point about John 20:23 delegating authority to the disciples to forgive sins (also interesting that the Synoptic tradition God’s forgiveness seems predicated on humans forgiving one another). Finally, I think you are right that there is a connection to the man’s sins being forgiven/loosed and the healing, though there are other passages in the Gospel tradition that question the causal connection between sin and suffering (Luke 13:1-3; John 9:2-3). However, I encourage you if you have access to it to read the article I posted (or watch the video) because, while you are right that it is somewhat apologetic, it is worth checking out Dr. Johannson arguments against reading it as a divine passive (he argues that Jesus uses an idiom which could also mean that he actively forgives the man) and how he does make a case that the fragmentary translation of “The Prayer of Nabonidus” may be not as clear-cut evidence for a human forgiving sins as Vermes makes it out to be. I am also not sure if Wolfgang Roth’s case for the OT parallel borders on parallelomania; it could just be that the narrative is showing that Jesus is so immensely popular according to the gospel that the only way to get at him was through the roof and for this daring act Jesus commends their faith.
I wrote a response to Dr Johansson’s JSNT article. Unfortunately, it was not accepted for publication, but it is available here: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5x3FbLhv6-AblQya1NTd203M1k
Thanks for this. Too bad it did not get through the peer review process because it deserves to be published. I would like to elevate it to a post so that readers can get both sides of the issue.
Thank you Mike, glad you found this to be of interest!
Tobias
[...] the comments section of my last post, Dr. Tobias Hägerland left his unpublished paper in response to the view that [...]
[...] “good,” the accusation that Jesus usurped a divine prerogative in claiming to forgive sins, the ignorance of “the son” about the eschatological day or hour, the [...]
[...] 33 (2010): 101-124 (for reviews of his work on Jesus forgiving the paralytic’s sins see here, here and [...]