Jesus Forgave Sins
September 10th, 2008 by Sean
In discussing the biblical doctrine of unitarianism (or simply put, that Yahweh alone is God), often people bring up, as evidence for Jesus’ deity, the fact that he forgave sins. No one, to my knowledge, has better expressed this argument than C.S. Lewis in his classic, Mere Christianity. Here is what he said:
C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, (NY: HarperCollins, 2001; originally published by The MacMillan Company in 1952), pp. 51-52.
One part of the claim tends to slip past us unnoticed because we have heard it so often that we no longer see what it amounts to. I mean the claim to forgive sins: any sins. Now unless the speaker is God, this is really so preposterous as to be comic. We can all understand how a man forgives offences against himself. You tread on my toe and I forgive you, you steal my money and I forgive you. But what should we make of a man, himself unrobbed and untrodden on, who announced that he forgave you for treading on other men’s toes and stealing other men’s money? Asinine fatuity is the kindest description we should give of his conduct. Yet this is what Jesus did. He told people that their sins were forgiven, and never waited to consult all the other people whom their sins had undoubtedly injured. He unhesitatingly behaved as if He was the party chiefly concerned; the person chiefly offended in all offences. This makes sense only if He really was the God whose laws are broken and whose love is wounded in every sin. In the mouth of any speaker who is not God, these words would imply what I can only regard as a silliness and conceit unrivalled by any other character in history.
It sounds pretty reasonable. Fred cheats Bob and so if Fred wants forgiveness he must seek it from Bob. But, even if Bob were to forgive Fred for cheating him out of his money, there is still the vertical aspect of the sin–Fred has not only sinned against Bob but also against God who says to be honest at all times. Though, in the moment, it may seem more important to Fred that Bob forgive him, ultimately the chief concern of Fred should be whether or not his God will forgive him. So, the first point to be made in response to C.S. Lewis’ elegant prose is that there really are two offenses found in every sin (at least those committed against other people). The first offense is against God and the second is against the person. Thus, Jesus is not forgiving Fred for Bob but rather on God’s behalf. But, before we go any further, let’s first refresh our minds concerning the actual account we are speaking about: the healing of the paralytic.
Jesus had just gotten back to his home in Capernaum several days earlier and already there were so many people wanting to see him that there was no room for a certain paralyzed man who desperately wanted to be healed. Those carrying him took it upon themselves to climb up the outer stairs to the roof and dig their way through it and let down the pallet on which the paralyzed man was lying.
Upon seeing their faith, Jesus said to the paralytic something that nobody expected:
Mark 2.5-7
5 And Jesus seeing their faith said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” 6 But some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, 7 “Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?”
The scribes were shocked that anyone would dare presume the authority which is God’s alone to forgive sins. Who did this Rabbi think he was? Only God can forgive this man’s sins! Jesus, never in a hurry to put his interlocutors at ease, answered them by saying,
Mark 2.9-12
9 “Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven’; or to say, ‘Get up, and pick up your pallet and walk ‘? 10 “But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins “– He said to the paralytic, 11 “I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet and go home.” 12 And he got up and immediately picked up the pallet and went out in the sight of everyone, so that they were all amazed and were glorifying God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this.”
Both statements are just as easy to say, yet one can easily pronounce people’s sins forgiven but who would know if they really were forgiven. However, if a paralyzed man is healed then there is no question that the words have power behind them. It is important to catch the point Jesus was getting across to these scribes by healing the paralytic: it was so that they would know that the Son of Man had authority on earth to forgive sins. This is the punch line, the core of what Jesus wanted to get across to his accusers. Note the response of the Jewish crowd to this event:
Matthew 9.8 But when the crowds saw this, they were awestruck, and glorified God, who had given such authority to men.
The people got the point and glorified the God who “had given such authority” to Jesus. Please note that they did not glorify Jesus as God. In fact, no one interpreted this event in terms of Jesus proving his deity whatsoever. Typically when Jewish people saw a healing or miracle they would conclude that God was at work through the human prophet or holy man. This contrasts with the typical mentality of the non-Jewish observes (for example in Acts) who would interpret the event as gods coming down in the likeness of human flesh.
Be that as it may, we might benefit by asking if there is another place in which the Bible talks about authority being conferred to the Son of Man. Fortunately, a good portion of John chapter five addresses this very topic. At the beginning of the chapter, Jesus had just healed another man who had been lame for thirty-eight years. He was lying next to the pool called Bethesda hopelessly waiting to be healed. Jesus asked him if he would like to be made well.
The man replied in the affirmative so Jesus healed him. The wrinkle in the story comes in when we are told that it was the Sabbath on which Jesus told the man to “pick up his pallet and walk.” As usually happened, there were a number of people who were upset that Jesus healed on the Sabbath (not to mention that he told the guy to carry his pallet on the Sabbath). This is where we will pick up the story in the Gospel of John:
John 5.16-18
16 For this reason the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing these things on the Sabbath. 17 But He answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.” 18 For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.
They were upset with Jesus because he healed this man on the Sabbath. I’m not sure that what Jesus did should really be considered as work. After all, how much effort does it take to say, “get up, take your bed, and walk?” Even so, Jesus decided rather to take refuge in the fact that his Father was working (apparently in and through Jesus). This infuriated the Jews who found murderous thoughts boiling up within them. In their minds he was breaking the Sabbath and making himself equal with God (by saying that he had a right to break the Sabbath because God still worked on Saturdays).
I can’t tell you how frustrating it is when those seeking to establish the deity of Christ stop at John 5.18, close their Bibles, and say, “Well, obviously Jesus claimed to be God. After all, that is what the Jews understood him to mean.” First of all, this line of thought overlooks the fact that Jesus’ opponents regularly misunderstood him. In fact, this is one of the major themes throughout the Gospel of John. If Jesus and his enemies are found to be arguing in the Gospel of John, there is probably a misunderstanding somewhere lurking in the background–a misunderstanding that we as readers can detect pretty easily. The second reason why John 5.18 makes a lousy proof-text for the notion that Jesus claimed to be God, is that Jesus himself clarifies the situation in the next verse–the verse many do not like to read.
John 5.19-23
19 Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner. 20 “For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him greater works than these, so that you will marvel. 21 “For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes. 22 “For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, 23 so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.
Firstly, it is important to note the phrase, “The son can do nothing of himself.” Jesus is not the source of power and healing, he is the conduit, the agent, the human through whom God does the remarkable. Secondly, Jesus, like any son, imitates the Father with regard to the things his Father shows him (remember the context is about “working” on the Sabbath). In fact, if they thought healing a lame man on the Sabbath was something, they should just wait to see what the Father will have Jesus do in the future! Then, Jesus goes into an explanation of just what the Father will confer upon him to do in the future. Two actions are listed: (1) God has given his son the power to raise the dead and (2) God has given all judgment to the son. In respect to these two we should honor the son even as we honor the Father who has conferred these immense responsibilities on the son. But, it’s this next section that really drives home the point and makes the connection to the healing of the paralytic.
John 5.24-27
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. 25 “Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 26 “For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself; 27 and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man.
Those who hear Jesus’ words and believe have life in the age to come and will not be judged. In fact, right now, in the present, one could even say the person has already passed out of (spiritual) death into (spiritual) life, which means that on the last day, when the resurrection occurs, the same person will pass from (physical) death into (physical) life forever. The dead are now already hearing the voice of the son of God and those who hear (i.e. listen and believe) will live (now and in the last day). Now for the punch line: the Father (who has life in himself) has given the son the power of resurrection and the authority execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. Since Jesus is the Son of Man, he has the authority, to resurrect and judge on the last day. Since he has that authority on the last day, in his own day, during his ministry, he brought forward that authority when he forgave sins. In other words, since God had conferred upon Jesus the role of Son of Man, Jesus was fully authorized to forgive sins on God’s behalf or to pronounce judgment on people. (For more on the end-time role of the Son of Man, see Daniel 7.13-14). Thus, when Jesus forgave sins, he was not, as C.S. Lewis suggested, either crazy or divine, rather, he was the one who had been divinely appointed to function in this role. Perhaps in light of this knowledge we can again read the account of the paralytic with fresh eyes:
Matthew 9.2-8
2 And they brought to Him a paralytic lying on a bed. Seeing their faith, Jesus said to the paralytic, “Take courage, son; your sins are forgiven.” 3 And some of the scribes said to themselves, “This fellow blasphemes.” 4 And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, “Why are you thinking evil in your hearts? 5 “Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, and walk ‘? 6 “But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins “– then He said to the paralytic, “Get up, pick up your bed and go home.” 7 And he got up and went home. 8 But when the crowds saw this, they were awestruck, and glorified God, who had given such authority to men.
The point is so simple and yet so profound. God has authorized Jesus to forgive sins on God’s behalf because he is the Son of Man.
Sean,
This is an excellent item. You make a great point about the Jews in John and how almost every conversation between Jesus and the Jews had to do with some kind of misunderstanding. Trinitarians like to use John 8:58 (and thereabouts) because “… if anyone knew what blasphemy is, it was the Jews …” Well, it seems to me that they were pretty ignorant about a lot of things, but that is another topic.
My question relates to Mark 2:7 – is there anyplace in the Bible, except this verse, which says that only God can forgive sins? Is there anything in the OT that states this?
-Thanks-
The classic example is Ps 51, in which David is repenting of his sin regarding Bathsheba and Uriah and he says, “against you and you alone have I sinned” or something to that affect. In other words, all sins have a vertical component. My proposed solution is not to question whether or not the paralytic’s sin was against God, but to say that if God decides to confer upon Jesus the function of forgiving sins then that is God’s prerogative. Also, we should probably mention this verse which has to do with the apostles (and perhaps anyone who has received the spirit?) forgiving sins:
Although in this case Son of Man most probably refers exclusively to Jesus himself. The term is actually most often translated as human being. If for a moment you would read that instead of the seemingly exclusive Son of Man, then the words by the crowd make sense as well: “who had given such authority to men.” And this in general holds as the passage quoted in the previous comment attests.
Blessings,
Daniel
Daniel,
I mentioned this in the article, but didn’t quote it, though I probably should have.
This is considered by most to be the background text to Jesus’ usage of the term. Son of Man was a wonderful term because it could mean either the one coming in the clouds to reclaim the world for God and give the kingdom inheritance to the saints OR it could just mean a human being. I think Jesus reveled in this ambiguity and because of it, he was able to speak truth to those who had ears to hear yet conceal truth from those who really weren’t open to receive. Thank you for pointing that out.
Sean,
Honestly, I don’t really know what John 20.21-23 means. I just thought it might in some way be relevant to the discussion at hand. What do you think it means?
Could John 20 21- 23 have a future application. The saints will participate in judging the “world”. Maybe this is apreview of how judment in the future will be carried out. One of the keys of course is the receiving of the holy spirit, without no one could do this. A big question I think is do we believe that Jesus has sent us and if we do then is this type of forgiveness apply to us in the time we live, is it in our “job” description.
I forgot to mention Sean I love the picture illustrations.
Sean,
I always thought that being forgiven and forgiving others is much like letting ones sin against another become void. But I guess if one sins against their brother, do they also sin against God? If a brother forgives another, does this sin still carry on with God?, or, does God consider it forgiven?
In the Lord’s prayer he includes the phrase “And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.” This seems to include both.
Well I see you have the oneness belief. I think you better pray and ask God the father to make this topic clear to you. I will only use a few examples. The big one “John 1;1 says in the beginning was the Word and the Word with God,and the Word was God, goes along with Revelation 19:13 which says his name is the Word of God. Matt 3:16-17 is another read it! Gen 1:26. If God is one then who is he talking to? Angles? No they can’t create!! The Holy Spirit is God also in Acts 5:3-4. Peter the Apostle is asking Ananias why he has lied to the Holy Spirit,and in the same sentence he says,”you have not lied to men but to God.I realize there is great debate over this subject, and I have studied them both thoroughly. In John 8:58 Jesus calls himself Gods name That he told Moses in Ex 3:14-15. study it out! Only God accepts mans worship,angeles didnt Jesus did. there can only be one correct view.Someone is wrong not me,AMEN
Willie,
Thank you for taking the time to help us. Even so, we do not espouse the oneness belief. Our belief is that Jesus was and remains a human being, divinely begotten by God in the womb of the virgin Mary. He lived a sinless life, preached the gospel of the kingdom tireless in conjunction with an extensive healing, exorcism, and teaching ministry (which included reaching out to the outcasts of his day). He was crucified for claiming to be the Messiah of Israel and God counted his death as payment for our sins. Three days later God raised his human Son from the dead to enter into resurrection life. He ascended to heaven and resides in the position of highest authority in the universe, next to God, and will one day return to establish God’s rule on earth as his agent.
Perhaps this perspective seems bizarre and unusual to you, but I would encourage you to interact with us so that we can come to the bottom of the matter together. We could certainly address each of the verses you have brought up, but since those texts were more aimed at a oneness person, I thought I’d wait for your response before engaging in a defense.
“[Jesus to the apostles] If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.” John 20:23
“The expressions they are forgiven and it is withheld both represent perfect-tense verbs in Greek and could also be translated, “they have been forgiven” and “it has been withheld,” since the perfect gives the sense of completed past action with continuing results in the present. The idea is not that individual Christians or churches have authority on their own to forgive or not forgive people, but rather that as the church proclaims the gospel message of forgiveness of sins in the power of the Holy Spirit (see v. 22), it proclaims that those who believe in Jesus have their sins forgiven, and that those who do not believe in him do not have their sins forgiven—which simply reflects what God in heaven has already done.” ESV study notes
how accurate is this interpretation?
Dear Sean,
I respectfully disagree concerning the article (I agree with C.S. Lewis here) but I’m looking at the side-issue you brought up:
Joh 20:21-23 KJV
(21) Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
(22) And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
(23) Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
So I’ll take a shot at the question:
From the first verse, I think that Jesus is sending out the disciples as a witness of himself, that he lives.
From the second verse, it sounds like he is granting the Holy Ghost right then, but Acts 1:4-8 he is telling them that they shall receive the Holy Ghost in a short while. Pentecost arrives in Acts 2, and the promise becomes reality. So, I think Jesus is speaking prophetically.
From the third verse, I think this is speaking of specific power being given for the purpose of proving their authenticity as the earlier Christian evangelists, and the word “remit” should not be confused with “forgive” in the sense as absolution for sins (as C.S. Lewis is saying).
For example, this might be an example of “remitting sin”
And this might be an example of “retaining sin”
Does this mean that the fate of Ananias and Sapphira is already signed and sealed, and is just awaiting a rubber stamp on judgment day, thanks to Peter? I still think that Christ is their judge.
If those verses was pulled to the extent favored by the Catholic Church, then Saint Peter had the power to free millions of souls from purgatory with the stroke of a pen, and could free the devil himself, if he so willed. So, maybe Peter wouldn’t, but there might be a Pope that would in the future.
If we’re using the explanation that I used above, then Paul also was given this same authority of the Holy Ghost:
Perhaps some preachers would have declared that death was a proper punishment for falling asleep during a sermon! But Paul chose to “remit his sin” and his “sin was remitted.”
All three of these are examples of life and death (two lives, and two deaths) but they seem to be simply the power to “kill the body” rather than the power to “destroy both body and soul in hell” as the “judge of the quick and the dead.”
Does that seem like a reasonable interpretation?
Take care,
-Andrew