Introduction:
To circumvent clear verses in the Gospel of Mark which undercut Jesus’ divinity, trinitarians point to isolated narratives such as in Mark 2 which they erroneously believe point to a divine Christ. To expose the errors of their ways, we will highlight their inconsistency through 3 layers of exegesis showing our interpretation is consistent in all cases. First we will assume the 4 gospels have 1 harmonious theology as conservative Christians do to show that the divine agency route is more apt of a solution than proclaiming Jesus as God. Next, we point out the earliest commentary on Mark written merely 10 years after him agrees with our interpretation before supporting it through the text of Mark as it stands by itself.
The Passage in Question:
When he returned to Capernaum after some days, it was reported that he was at home. So many gathered around that there was no longer room for them, not even in front of the door, and he was speaking the word to them. Then some people came, bringing to him a paralyzed man, carried by four of them. And when they could not bring him to Jesus because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him, and after having dug through it, they let down the mat on which the paralytic lay. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Child, your sins are forgiven.” Now some of the scribes were sitting there questioning in their hearts, “Why does this fellow speak in this way? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” At once Jesus perceived in his spirit that they were discussing these questions among themselves, and he said to them, “Why do you raise such questions in your hearts? Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Stand up and take your mat and walk’? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he said to the paralytic—“I say to you, stand up, take your mat, and go to your home.” And he stood up and immediately took the mat and went out before all of them, so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this!”
The Response:
A decontextualized prima facie reading of this text seems to support the divinity of Christ. Jesus informs the paralytic his sins are forgiven and the scribes seem to ‘rightly’ assume that Christ is assigning to himself a divine prerogative and is thus blaspheming. This is erroneous on multiple fronts. First off, throughout each gospel, the scribes are continuously portrayed in contrast to the real Jews who are usually common people with true faith. The scribes on the other hand, are arrogant, follow man-made laws, and constantly oppose Jesus. Their hearts have no foundation in God, and they are thus destined due to their own arrogance, and opposition to truth to follow Satan. This theme is well-pronounced and it is most evident in the dialogue between Jesus, and the Jews in John 8:31-58. Verses 33 and 34 explain why exactly they constantly misrepresent him; “Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires”. Note: We are not making a claim on historicity. We are showing how the author chose to portray this specific group of people, knowing that this aligns with the other gospels. In Mark 4, the scribes align with the first group mentioned in the Parable of the Sower. They are the seed on the path which does not grow and has ‘the word’ taken away due to their rocky foundation (note the rock imagery and how the pious 4th group is mentioned). In Matthew, we read; “You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of”. This sort of language, and these parables and confrontations can also generally be found in Luke.
Nevertheless we have shown how the Jews misrepresent Jesus and thus we cannot rely on their often faulty interpretations as our exegetical cornerstone. Interestingly, this story is paralleled in Matthew 9 where the evangelist says “When the crowds saw it, they were filled with awe, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to human beings”. As Mark was written first, unlike what the Patristic consensus would lead us to believe (more on this in future works), the Gospel of Matthew is the earliest commentary on Mark and already, an inter-gospel commentary can be seen where an evangelist is simply portraying this as another miracle or sign done by God through Jesus. Matthew specifically calls the Jewish accusation ‘evil thoughts’ and repudiates it through Jesus. The narrative ends with Matthew writing; “When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to man”. Thus, the direct reaction to the crowd according to Matthew is a praise of God for he had given man authority to forgive sins. In this whole narrative the only man doing such an action is Jesus and as such this naturally refers back to him just as he himself confirms 2 verses prior where he states that “The Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”. According to Matthew, this narrative consists of Jesus forgiving the paralytic’s sin, the Jewish leaders with disease in their heart interpreting this as blasphemy, and the crowd, and himself ascribing this as a miracle granted by God to Jesus thus negating any possible proof of divinity from this event; and we would argue anywhere in the Gospel although Christians may not be readily accept that. The only way out of this dilemma is to argue that Matthew was wrong. However, this is unlikely as this general idea is not foreign to the synoptic paradigm as the first speech of Acts has Peter saying “Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did through him among you, as you yourselves know” (Acts 2:22).
Mark 2:10 is part of Jesus’ response to the Pharisees where he explains that “the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”. As the Prophet of God, Jesus is given specific authority from God and part of this authority is the ability to forgive the sins of others on behalf of the Father as attested by the evangelists. John 20:21-23 actually has Jesus saying “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” Regardless if Jesus is divine or not in this passage, [a topic which will be explored later] it is important that one notices the idea of agency in regards to forgiveness of sins whether it is Jesus sending the apostles or the Father sending Jesus [Father -> Jesus -> Apostles] is directly present. A further note that may warrant consideration is that Jesus does not say that he himself has forgiven the paralytic’s sins but rather claims “your sins are forgiven” in an impersonal manner implying that he is not the ultimate source behind this forgiveness but rather that it is God the Father. Thus, Jesus is given the authority to forgive sins on earth as a prophet of God. We would argue that this poses a direct problem for the Trinitarian paradigm which posits that Jesus is God although due to the complicated nature of their theology we will explore this in a future article. Suffice it to say however, the evangelists themselves are aware of this [Matt/Luke] and provide us with the framework necessary [Matt/Luke/John] to conclude that agency of this degree is possible.
Conclusion:
The Gospel of Mark is replete with passages that, in their plain meaning, go against the idea of a divine Christ and we would argue necessitate it yet Christians, forced to accept the fourfold gospel canon and faulty tradition, need to argue using inconsistent principles to explain these passages and bring passages such as Mark 2, which are refuted through a cursory reading of the narrative parallel in Matthew. When we go through every proof-text of the ‘divine’ Christ in Mark our readers will thoroughly understand the deceptive exegesis employed by supporters of the fully divine Markan Jesus thesis; an approach which may have worked in ancient times, but is definitively outdated.
