is an interesting passage. Here Jesus pronounces forgiveness of sins, Mark then narrates the inner thoughts of the Scribes, “Who can forgive sins but God alone” (εἷς ὁ θεός possibly pointing to Deut 6.4) After this Jesus performs a healing miracle so that they might know that “the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive.” This passage certainly carries Christological implications, but it isn’t entirely clear from a casual reading what that implication is. I want to try and spell out some of what that implication is here.In v. 2.5 It’s possible that Jesus’ pronouncement of forgiving of sins is a divine passive, so that τέκνον, ἀφίενταί σου αἱ ἁμαρτίαι would be understood as “Child, God has forgiven your sins.” This understanding though is not without problems. It would hardly justify the ensuing controversy in the way that it plays out between the scribes and Jesus. If it were the case the expectation would be that the Scribes response would revolve around authority. Jesus wasn’t a member of the priestly class and would not have been recognized as authorized to pronounce God’s forgiveness of sins. This brings me to one of the major points in question, does Mark, by narrating the thoughts of the Scribes in response to Jesus’ pronouncement of forgiveness, point readers towards identifying Jesus with the God of Israel? Robert Guelich in his commentary on Mark 1-8.20 (WBC) comments that “Jesus was not being accused of claiming to be God but of blaspheming against God by claiming to do what God alone could do” (pg 87) The function of the Scribes response then is to frame the narrative in terms of identity, only God can forgive sins, rather than in terms of authorization, the temple is one authorized to pronounce God’s forgiveness. This is significant in the way that the narrative proceeds.
In v. 9 Jesus ask a questions of the scribes which then functions to invest meaning to the miracle he is about to perform. He makes this explicit when he says, “I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” He then heals the paralytic man in order to demonstrate his authority to forgive. A significant questions rises out of this. How does the authority that Jesus demonstrates relate to the preceding narrative? If Jesus is now claiming that he has merely been authorized to proclaim God’s forgiveness, this would effectively kill the dramatic tension that Mark has set up by narrating the scribes’ thoughts. If on the other hand, Jesus is claiming authority to forgive, this calls for a reexamination of Jesus in light of the Scribes question. Who is able to forgive except God alone? If Mark’s readers agree with the Scribes that only God alone is able to forgive, and I would think that any good Jew of the time would agree with this, the only option is to then see Jesus in terms of what R. Bauckham has called a Christology of divine identity, Jesus must be intrinsically part of the one who the Jews would describe as the one God (εἷς ὁ θεός).
A further piece of evidence invites comment. In v. 2.6 Mark narrates that the Scribes were thinking “in their hearts.” He then narrates that Jesus knew immediately what they were thinking, Guelich notes that R. Pesch (Das Markusevangelium, HTKNT) thinks that this is an allusion to God as the knower of hearts in the OT [1 Sam 16.7
; 1 Kgs 8.39; Ps 7.9 (LXX 10); Jer 11.20; Sir 42.18–20; cf. Acts 1.24; 15.8; Luke 16.15], if this is the case then case for identifying Jesus with God is strengthen and solidified. First off though, the question of whether Pesch is warranted in thinking that there is an allusion here is a necessary one? Can Jesus’ knowledge of what the scribes were thinking be attributed to any sort of divine insight on Jesus’ part? One the one hand Jesus would have been aware of the cultural understanding that God alone is able to forgive. By directly engaging this assumption Jesus could have easily anticipated the reaction of the Scribes, so some caution is warranted before attributing divine insight to Jesus in this case. However, Mark has narrated that the Scribes questioning was done in their hearts, he then states that immediately Jesus knew what they were thinking. The ‘immediately’ implies a much more specific link to Jesus’ knowledge than just a mere general understanding based on cultural assumptions. Pesch’s allusion then is at least possible if not likely given the way that Mark narrates the event.A Christology of divine identity wouldn’t be unique to this one passage in Mark either. At the end of Mark 4.35-41
, the disciples ask one another “Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!” (TNIV) As a number of commentators have noted the preceding narrative alludes to a number of Old Testament passages. [Pss 89.9-10, 104.7, 107.25-29; Job 26.11-12, Jonah 1] If these verbal allusions are intentional on Mark’s part, then it is very likely that he is using the disciples’ question in v. 41 to help readers reflect on this aspect of his narrative and draw the conclusion that Jesus and Israel’s God, who is sovereign over all of creation, should be identified in some sense.
3 comments:
Interesting post!
So do you espouse the "divine passive" reading in v.5? You appear to argue against it throughout the rest of your post.
I guess a larger question about the Synoptics and the "divine identity" of Jesus is this: Why didn't they simply come out and state Jesus' divinity as the Fourth Evangelist appears to do?
Matthew,
thanks for your comments. I was arguing against the divine passive, I probably should make that more explicit in the 2nd paragraph. The point I was trying to make in pointing out the Scribes response is that it is out of line with a divine passive reading of the passage and rather points a reader towards understanding Jesus pronouncement of forgiveness as a performative utterance. That creates a narrative tension that leads ultimately lead a reader to identify Jesus with God.
The question of why the synoptic evangelists weren't more explicit in their Christology is an interesting one. Bauckham's book "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses" had some interesting food for thought that I'm still mulling over. He argues that the fourth evangelists was a personal disciple of Jesus and therefore would have felt more at liberty to offer the sort of higher level interpretation he does. The Synoptics were relaying traditions that had been handed down by the eyewitnesses, and would have felt more constrained to keep closer to what had been given to them.
I suppose one possibility to consider is that the gospel existed in a largely oral culture, writing down the gospel material may have been a way to solidify and safe guard the traditions about Jesus, but the evangelists expectation may have been that the sort of higher level interpretation we expect would have accompanied the gospels when they were read.
Another possibility is that stylistically the Synoptics preferred to work under the radar much like Jesus was in telling cryptic parables. The implications of what they were saying was there for those who had ears to hear, but were closed to outsiders.
I would love to explore this topic more. I have yet come to any definite conclusions on the topic. Do you, or any other readers, have any good recommendations on it?
Thanks for the response.
I'm not sure as to where to go for more on the lack of explicitness in the Synoptics (seeing that I focus mostly on Paul) but your post has piqued my interest. I may have to do some reading on the topic now!
Post a Comment