And getting into a boat he crossed over and came to his own city. And behold they were bringing to him a paralytic, laid on a bed. And having seen their faith Jesus said to the paralytic, “Have confidence, child, your sins are forgiven.” And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man blasphemes.” But having seen their thoughts Jesus said, “Why do you think evil things in your hearts? For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven’, or to say, ‘Rise and walk’? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…”—he then says to the paralytic, “Having risen pick up your bed and go to your house. And having risen he went away to his house. And seeing, the crowds were afraid and glorified the God who had given such authority to men.
This is one of the passages that is often put forward as “evidence” that the synoptic Gospel account already presents Jesus as both human and divine. The argument is that i) it is the prerogative of God to forgive sins, ii) in this story Jesus forgives sins, iii) therefore Jesus must be God. Added to this, it is sometimes supposed that Jesus demonstrates exclusive supernatural insight into the inner thoughts of the scribes who were so offended by his pronouncement. Neither of these propositions is correct.
Matthew does not explain why the scribes thought that Jesus’ pronouncement of forgiveness amounted to blasphemy. Mark and Luke, however, have the scribes ask, “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” Whether or not the rabbis at this time had explicitly formulated the dogma that only God can forgive sins, it is clear enough—if not self-evident—that according to both the sacrificial system and later eschatological narratives it is God alone who forgives Israel’s sin.
Jesus’ response is to claim that the authority (exousian) to forgive sins has been given on earth to the Son of Man. Behind this must be Daniel’s vision of a figure “like a son of man” who, at a time of national religious crisis, is given an “everlasting authority” (exousia aiōnios) (Dan. 7:14 LXX). Jesus certainly identifies himself with this symbolic figure, but what the figure represents is the loyal community of righteous Israel, which resisted pagan pressure to abandon ancestral worship. When Jesus claims to be the Son of Man, therefore, he identifies himself not with God but with a particular group in Israel—with those who will remain faithful during the impending eschatological crisis. What the vision asserts is that, in time, the pagan oppressor will be defeated (7:11), apostate Israel will be judged (cf. 12:2), and the suffering community of the “saints of the Most High” will be given “the authority and the kingdom and the magnitude of all the kingdoms, which are under heaven” (Dan. 7:27).
The reaction of the onlookers is to glorify “the God who had given such authority to men” (Matt. 9:8). Perhaps this reflects a misunderstanding on their part, but there is nothing in the text to suggest that this is the case, and it is completely congruent with Jesus’ claim that the authority to forgive sins has been given to the Son of Man. It is also consistent with the fact that Jesus bestows on his disciples—as the community of the Son of Man—the authority to forgive or to withhold forgiveness, to loose on earth or to bind on earth (Matt. 16:19; 18:18), because the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.
It should be stressed, too, that at issue here is the forgiveness specifically of Israel’s sins—the paralytic is, in effect, a representative figure. The healing of the sick is a sign to Israel that a restoration from the margins, from amongst the dispossessed, is at hand. The forgiveness of the paralytic in defiance of the outraged scribes is a sign to faithful Israel—the Israel represented by the stretcher bearers—that its forgiveness is at hand. The connection between healing and forgiveness is given in Isaiah 53:4, which Matthew cited earlier to explain why Jesus healed the sick and cast out demons (8:17).
Finally, there is no suggestion of divine knowledge in the statement that Jesus “saw their thoughts”. Just as the “faith” of those who carried the paralytic was made visible by their action, so the “thoughts” of the scribes were made visible by the manner of their talking together. The statements are exactly parallel: Jesus saw (idōn) their faith and spoke; Jesus saw (idōn) their thoughts and spoke. Mark speaks of Jesus “knowing in his spirit that they thus questioned among themselves”, but this hardly points to divine knowledge.
This passage says something of central importance about the relationship of Jesus to God. It does not assert an identification of Jesus with God. It does not directly serve the interests of a later developed two-nature christology. What it says is that in a time of eschatological crisis God has exceptionally given to Jesus, as a figure who fulfils the symbolic function of Daniel’s “Son of Man”, the authority to do what otherwise only God himself can do, which is to forgive the sins on account of which the nation has incurred the wrath of God. It is the transfer of authority that is remarkable and a cause of wonder for the onlookers, not any confusion of identities. So the opening argument needs to be restated: i) it is the prerogative of God to forgive the sins of oppressed Israel, ii) in this story Jesus forgives the sins of a man oppressed by sickness, iii) therefore God has given to Jesus authority to forgive sins.
(There was extensive discussion of this passage in an earlier comment thread, which won’t all need to be repeated here.)
Comments
Re: Matt. 9:1-8 - Jesus and the authority to forgive sins
Interesting, I had heard that the Son of Man in Daniel should be seen as a corporate figure symbolized as a person, thats why he is like a son of man. I agreed with the proposal, it seemed more in fitting with jewish conceptions of the Day of the Lord, but thought that Jesus used it in a more individual messiah sense. If the corporate sense of the term though was still around in Jesus' time, and it wasn't so long ago that the book was written, then it could well have been the sense that Jesus uses the term. It would clear up some mysteries, why Jesus seems to aplly the term to himself, and at other times uses it as if he is speaking of another person, and the it also removes what seems like a very arrogant self designation.
Re: Matt. 9:1-8 - Jesus and the authority to forgive sins
Hi, not really part of your discussion, But I was searching for some exegesis on this passage. I've been thinking that to me this passage is saying something simple, that the pharisee got upset or couldn't understand Jesus here, because what he was doing was not replacing the law, or making himself God, but abolishing the law in this way: by simply forgiving sins, the whole system of ritual sacrifice, or appeasement of wrath, is negated.
I've been thinking that God's anger in the Bible is just that. The so-called punishment of Israel was undertaken after long suffering forbearance. God is illustrated as not desiring to punish until sin after sin built up. When punishment finally takes place, it's with the hope of repentance, teaching how to think with a clean heart. The illustration of anger for anger's sake to me seems to be the human authors of the Bible relating the details of the experience. The ones who seem to be wrathful and enjoy punishment for punishment's sake are the pharisee, the legalists in all the negative senses, the humans.
What if another way of looking at Christ saw this. With the foreknowledge of God, Christ abolished the law, the system of ritual sacrifice and legalism. The New Testament says Christ removed our need to sacrifice to God in order to appease his wrath against our sins. What if Christ removed the so called wrath by simply forgiving? What if Christ was not killed to be our supposed needed sacrifice, but BECAUSE he abolished the need by simply extending forgiveness of sins. Then it was the wrath of men that killed him.
Even now this would seem crazy to us, because we think there HAS to be a penalty paid. We can even say that for God, right? That's how our world works. Did anyone stop to think that perhaps all along that's what God has been trying to get across to us - that's not how HE works? What did the psalmist say, and the prophet Isaiah say, as coming from God "do I delight in the blood of bulls?" a contrite heart, and repentance and understanding is what they say God desires. I believe sin is real. I believe Christ forgives sin. I believe God forgives sin. It's us that desire punishment.
I believe it's time for western Christianity to grow. Sin is indeed real, but I wonder if Christ did not suffer a substitutionary punishment, but in reality suffered the direct sinfulness of those who couldn't handle the audacity of simple forgiveness in the name of God, or just as bad for the killers, the reduction of their power and control of others.