Disputed Issues: Contending for Christian Faith in Today's Academic Setting

4. Did Jesus Claim to Forgive Sins?

39 Did Jesus Claim to Forgive Sins? 4 I This chapter is a piece of theological and philosophical exegesis. It concerns the concept of forgiveness of sins, and especially Jesus’ apparent willingness in the New Testament to offer forgiveness. I will deal primarily with Mark 2:1-12. Section II lays some philosophical groundwork with a brief discussion of the phenomenon of forgiveness of one person by another. Section III deals with divine forgiveness and, more specifically, with a recent argument by philosopher Anne C. Minas to the effect that God, a perfect being, cannot forgive sins. Then in Section IV we will turn to the Mark text, where Jesus seems to dispense forgiveness to a paralytic. My concerns will be both exegetical and theological, that is, I will try to deal both with the text itself and with its place in the church’s theology. In Section V, I will discuss two large ways of interpreting the text christologically, the first of which I will call the traditional reading. The second—which comes in different varieties—I will call christologically minimalist ways of interpreting the text. I will argue that those interpretations are unconvincing. Finally, in Section VI, I will argue that Jesus’ offer of forgiveness to people is one of the materials from which a coherent Christology should be constructed. An earlier version of this chapter appeared as “‘Who Can Forgive Sins but God Alone?’: Jesus, Forgiveness, and Divinity,” in The Multivalence of Biblical Texts and Theological Meanings, ed. Christine Helmer (Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006). 40 Disputed Issues II In order to forgive, one must have a certain moral standing. If you were to ask me to forgive some offense that you once committed against, say, your brother, I would have to reply that I am unable to do so. I do not have the necessary moral standing. In general, the person who has the moral standing and thus the logical opportunity to forgive is the person against whom the offense was committed. In this case, your brother is the person to whom you should apply for forgiveness. Forgiveness presupposes that something morally wrong has been done and that the perpetrator is responsible. Forgiveness is inappropriate in cases where the alleged wrongdoer did not really do the deed or cause it to occur, or where she did the deed but under the cover, so to speak, of a legitimate excuse or justification. Only those who are truly guilty can be forgiven. So forgiveness is not the same thing as justification (which argues for no wrongdoing), excuse (which argues for no moral responsibility), mercy (which may or may not be involved in forgiveness and which may be granted by those who do not have the moral standing to forgive), or reconciliation (which can occur without forgiveness and is often a result of forgiveness). Forgiveness usually involves the forgiver voluntarily: (a) having a change of heart toward the evildoer, for example, giving up anger and resentment toward her; (b) giving up the desire for punishment of the wrongdoer (although forgiveness can be consistent with punishment still being administered); and (c) reconciliation, that is, restoration of the old relationship between the two parties (assuming that there was one). Forgiveness is rarely morally required. Since it presupposes the guilt of the wrongdoer, forgiveness also assumes the legitimacy of both the resentment felt by the offended person and punishment of the wrongdoer. Accordingly, forgiveness is normally morally allowed but not normally required. Taken to extremes, forgiveness can have an unsavory aspect. Lest forgiveness slide over into servility, condoning of evildoing, or lack of self-respect on the part of the offended person,1 certain acts are its normal prerequisite. They include contrition (or apology), repentance, and some degree of reparation (where possible) on the part of the wrongdoer .2 This is not to deny that there can be cases where forgiveness is possible and even desirable quite apart from the satisfaction of some of these prerequisites. As Jean Hampton argues, forgiving is not the same thing as condoning . Condoning a given act entails accepting it, taking it as morally allow- Did Jesus Claim to Forgive Sins? 41 able. Forgiveness, on the other hand, entails that the forgiver continues to hold that the forgiven deed was morally wrong.3 In some traditions, for example, the Christian tradition, forgiveness is a virtue. Christians are encouraged to forgive those who commit...