Does "Only God forgive sins" necessitate that Jesus be God?

[morbo3000]

As best I can tell, the only section of Mark that can be used to (hint) at Jesus' divinity is the accusation of the rulers that "Only God can forgive sins," to which Jesus demonstrates his authority through a miracle.

Since John the baptist before, and the apostles after proclaimed, or forgave sins, I am suspicious that this is reading Jesus presumed deity from other sources back into that story. It seems another way to read that is that by demonstrating the miracle as a sign of his ability to forgive sins, Jesus is maybe saying "it is not simply God who can forgive, or proclaim forgiveness of sins. People with authority, like me (the son of god/son of man), can also forgive sins." This is more consistent with the whole of Mark I believe.

[Paidion]

"Why does this Man speak blasphemies like this? Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (Mark 2:7 )

These were the words of the Pharisees. It seems they were mistaken.

Jesus said to His disciples:

"If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." (John 20:23 NKJV)

Clearly Jesus indicated that His disciples could forgive sins.

[darinhouston]

That's the subject of this recent thread, also.

http://www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=4327

[mattrose]

As best I can tell, the only section of Mark that can be used to (hint) at Jesus' divinity is...

You sometimes demonstrate a real skill for overstatement

If we are considering 'hints'... why not

1:1 "Jesus Christ, the Son of God"
1:3 [John the Baptist is to] "prepare the way for the LORD"
1:7 [John says of Jesus] "the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie"
1:8 [John says that Jesus] "will baptize you with the Holy Spirit"
1:11 [God says from heaven, to Jesus] "you are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."
1:17 "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men"
1:22 "The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law"
1:24 [the demons, recognizing Jesus, ask] What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are-- the Holy One of God."
1:25 "Come out of Him" (Jesus did not appeal to God the Father to exorcise the demon)
1:34 "Jesus healed many... but he would not let the demons speak because they knew who he was."
1:38 "Let us go... so I can preach... that is why I have come." (come from were?)

I'll stop with chapter 1... my point being that if we're only looking for possible hints that Jesus may be 'divinity,' then we have hundreds if not thousands of examples in the Gospels alone. Granted, all of these can be interpreted in multiple ways.... but let's not pretend there's a lack of evidence to interpret.

[morbo3000]

The purpose of the question is my interest in proto-orthodoxy; I am limiting my study to the Gospels Mark and "Q" independent of the other orthodox texts. If the other synoptics, Paul or John say something that illuminates or redefines Mark or Q, I'm not interested. Not as a limitation of theology, but rather as a study of the development of Christology, soteriology, et al.

I am interested in Mark and "Q" because they show what was most important (and not) to the earliest Christian tradition that they are sourced from. What was worth including. What wasn't (or may not have even been talked about at that time.) Some examples: In Mark, riches were an entry and obstacle to eternal life for one person, not belief/faith. And the story of the rich man is one of only a few places where Mark even mentions. Q is a collection of Jesus' sayings and quotations and generally does not describe the events of the life of Jesus: Q does not mention Jesus' birth, his selection of the 12 disciples, his crucifixion, or the resurrection. Likewise, Mark did not mention Jesus' conception or birth, and his Christology does not require that Jesus be YHWH; rather he is the Son of Man, and the Son of God.

I don't need to debate all this because all I care about for this study is what Mark and "Q" clearly taught. Not what can be read into them from the orthodox texts.

As far as overstating.. Christianity is itself an overstatement. I don't mind my association with it. And I don't need to debate that either.

[mattrose]

The purpose of the question is my interest in proto-orthodoxy; I am limiting my study to the Gospels Mark and "Q" independent of the other orthodox texts. If the other synoptics, Paul or John say something that illuminates or redefines Mark or Q, I'm not interested. Not as a limitation of theology, but rather as a study of the development of Christology, soteriology, et al.

I am interested in Mark and "Q" because they show what was most important (and not) to the earliest Christian tradition that they are sourced from. What was worth including. What wasn't (or may not have even been talked about at that time.) Some examples: In Mark, riches were an entry and obstacle to eternal life for one person, not belief/faith. And the story of the rich man is one of only a few places where Mark even mentions. Q is a collection of Jesus' sayings and quotations and generally does not describe the events of the life of Jesus: Q does not mention Jesus' birth, his selection of the 12 disciples, his crucifixion, or the resurrection. Likewise, Mark did not mention Jesus' conception or birth, and his Christology does not require that Jesus be YHWH; rather he is the Son of Man, and the Son of God.

This limitation/assumption is, in my opinion, a mistake... on a couple of fronts

1. Q is a hypothetical document. It is just as possible that Matt and Luke had a common source (a person rather than a document) or both utilized common oral testimony. There is no good reason to value this so called "Q" material over the rest of Matt & Luke's material unless you are way-late-dating Matt & Luke (like post 1st century). What's more... your taking from the "fact" that Q is a collection of sayings and quotations from Jesus (you've apparently found Q ) as an indication of a purposeful de-emphasis on doctrine by its supposed author is pure speculation. Whose to say the author didn't write a tandem book which was wholly narrative?

2. Paul's letters contain a number of passages that the vast majority of scholars recognize as creedal-like statements pre-dating Paul's writing. These statements are considered to be some of the earliest sources we have for the Christian faith. If you're trying to figure out how christology developed... you simply can't leave them out. And yet, they evidence some of the highest christology available... and that's just my point.

I don't need to debate all this because all I care about for this study is what Mark and "Q" clearly taught. Not what can be read into them from the orthodox texts.

As far as overstating.. Christianity is itself an overstatement. I don't mind my association with it. And I don't need to debate that either

Since you have book-ended your final comments with a statement about the lack of need to 'debate,' I might remind you that debating is pretty much the main purpose of this sort of message board! If you're going to make a very bold statement, as you did, you'll need to be ready to defend it if you're interested in actual dialogue.

Christianity is, indeed, a big statement. But it is also true. Your opening statement was a big statement. But it was also false. That is why I called it an over-statement. You said...

As best I can tell, the only section of Mark that can be used to (hint) at Jesus' divinity is the accusation of the rulers that "Only God can forgive sins," to which Jesus demonstrates his authority through a miracle.

You chose to use the words ONLY and HINT. You could have easily said, "As best I can tell, the section of Mark most easily utilized to suggest Jesus' divinity is..." But you didn't. By making it sound like the entire Gospel of Mark only contains 1 passage that could even barely suggest the doctrine of the divinity of Christ.... you overstated your case. I call them like I see them.

[jarrod]

I call them like I see them.

This may be off-topic, but I really enjoy reading your posts Matt.

Jarrod

[mattrose]

Well thanks Jarrod... speaking of somewhat off-topic comments, though, my original comment in this thread was a bit off-topic too. I responded with some length to 1 opening line (which I do think deserved a response). But the intent of the original post is a good one. Is the idea that only God forgives sins true? And to what extent do passages containing this idea in Mark support the doctrine of the divinity of Christ? These are valid questions.

I think it's an issue that requires some nuance. If my brother sins against me and asks forgiveness, certainly I can forgive him. The right to forgive sins can also be delegated. I do, however, think there was a difference in the way Jesus forgave sins. He forgave sins that were not obviously against Him (like in the case of my brother sinning against me) and He forgave sins with an authority that didn't come across as delegated (hence the charges of blasphemy). He forgave as if HE WAS the authority... as if HE WAS the one with the right to delegate (as He did with Peter/the-church).

The passage in Mark is clearly not a slam dunk case for the divinity of Christ. But it is also not easily dismissed.

[steve7150]

and He forgave sins with an authority that didn't come across as delegated










But at the end of Matthew he said "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" which i interpret as "delegated" although that does not mean he is not divine, simply this job had been exclusive to the Father.

[jriccitelli]

The reason the apostles could forgive sins is because they were ‘told’ they could, by the One they deemed ‘the Son of God’ by His authority. And we have been called to forgive each other because we ‘have’ been forgiven. Johns ministry was preparatory for the coming of God, the Lord, and who came? Ans. Jesus.
“Make ready the way of the Lord, make His paths straight” John’s whole message from 1:1-8 includes a understanding of One who is coming, and the emphasis of John’s message is not baptism as an end in itself but a way to prepare for the One coming (1:7). John is preparing them to meet Jesus, and John also introduces Jesus as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.
As repentance is preparatory to belief and not forgiveness in of itself, so it is notable that the word ‘for’ in Mark 1:4 is a preposition (as also Luke 3:3) and note that the word occurs over 1700 times and is translated correctly almost 95% of the time into English as; to, into, unto, and the English text would have been best to stick with unto.

And I would agree with Matt’s post, noting that none of the Gospels were understood in a vacuum.
I believe the Gospels were all written minutes of the ‘most common sermons’ and the ‘repeated week to week’ testimonies of the 12 (or 11) disciples, which they must have developed into a loop after awhile as I'm sure they were asked to repeat the stories every week, maybe every day. Some saying more, writing more, some less.

(And I would hold that Son of God = the same nature as God. And if you are of the same nature as God, you are = God)

Paidion, Jesus said; do what they say, but not do as they do. All true Israelites would know that no-one could forgive sins without a Priest and a sacrifice, it’s the LAW. Jesus then says “so that you may know that the Son of Man has AUTHORITY on earth to forgive sins”. Jesus did not say; so that you may know everyone has the authority to forgive sins.