Recently a friend posed a question relating to the story of the palsied man lowered through the roof in Capernaum (Mt 9:1-8), and specifically to Jesus’ offer of forgiveness in that pericope. Basically, the question had to do with the apparent incongruity of a man offering forgiveness. The question included the suggestion (rejected by the interrogator) that in that act of forgiveness, Jesus acted only in His deity and not in His humanity. The question broached some issues that I encounter now and again, and which I believe are worthy of clarification. Thus I have waxed bold to record my response in this place.
First, we would all concur that in His incarnation – in taking upon Himself all of the real limitations intrinsic to unfallen humanity – Jesus never surrendered anything of His deity. Thus, though fully man, the God-Man Jesus was fully God, and thus could (and did) claim for Himself the sublime prerogative of forgiving sins. Indeed, that is the point of the narrative in Mt 9:1-8. The record is explicit that it was “…in order that [Jesus’ detractors] might know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” that “He said to the sick of palsy, ‘Get up, pick up your bed, and go home!’” In short, though He was man very man, Jesus knew full well that He was God very God, and thus that even “on earth” He possessed the authority to forgive those who believed. (continued)
good stuff! if I could ask a follow-up:
Jesus having repeatedly made the point that His words and works were not his own, but that He said and did what was given Him by the Father–that is, as we find most fully expressed in John 17, that he consciously spoke as (God being a man) a man speaking *as authorized* by God, and able to do so immediately because (this man being God) He was volitionally “the same” with God–do we even need to get into the parsing of humanity/deity within Christ in order to deal with His forgiving sins? It still comes out that only the Christ among men has ever and originally been “the same” with God, though all of us will be remade “partakers of the divine nature.”
Short version of which is: would Christ’s perfectly and immediately enacting the Father’s will account for this passage and related others, or is there reason we must resolve this *within* the Person of the Son?
Dear Bookman,
Greetings. Question for you. “What was Jesus praying for in the garden on the night when he was betrayed?” What was in the cup that He asked would pass? I would imagine that it wasn’t that the crucifixion would pass b/c that was the reason for his coming. What was in the cup? Or is this one of those mysteries that we will need to wait for?
thanks. Hope all is well with you.
Andy Lichtenberger
Andy.
Great to hear from you. In fact, I would argue that the crucifixion was what Jesus was thinking of when He prayed “Let this cup pass from me.” More precisely, that which the Father has for the Son is the terror of knowing spiritual death – judicial disfellowshipping of the Son by the Father as the Son is made the sin-sacrifice for men. Indeed, the temptation to turn back from the cross seems to have been the most awful of the tempations endured by Jesus and spoken of, for instance, in Heb 4:12. As you trace the record of Jesus’ ministry, the cross becomes more and more of a source of terror to Jesus as it draws near, terror that in some measure physically crippled Him (cf the angels of Lk 22:43 – the only other time the Father dispatched angels to care for Jesus, it by reason of a 40-day fast!). That temptation was implicit in Satan’s offer to cede the kingdoms of the cosmos to Jesus if He would but worship Satan (the crown without the cross), and Jesus heard an echo of that in Peter’s insistence that He, the Messiah, could/would not die (cf. Jesus’ response- “Get behind me, Satan!”). It’s fascinating to compare Jesus’ conversation with the Father on Tuesday of the Passion Week (Jn 12:27-28) with the prayer He uttered three times in the Garden late on Thursday night. (By the way, i am persuaded that the words spoken by the Father to the Son in that exchange is precisely the promise Jesus took to the cross.) The point is that the prayer He refused to pray – though He clearly contemplated it – on Tuesday, He did pray on Thursday. Which I take to be a powerful indication of the depth of horror Jesus experienced as He contemplated Calvary, and thus which He did in fact endure when He experienced the cross. Indeed, it is my persuasion that the believer will never appreciate the depths of suffering endured by Jesus at Golgotha unless he begins at Gethsemane. Of course, the blessed reality is that Jesus never stopped with a prayer that the cup pass from Him; He always went on to submit to the Father’s will. But again, i believe that the atoning death which Jesus would suffer on Calvary is exactly what He meant when He prayed three times, “If there be any way, let this cup pass from me!” Of course, there is no other way. And for that reason, having submitted to the will of the Father, Jesus emerged from the Garden and, in the middle of the arrest narrative, said to Peter, “the cup which the Father has given me, shall I not drink it?” (Jn 18:11).
Thanks for asking. As you know, not everyone sees the reference in this way, but I am persuaded (humbly but confidently) that this is how it ought to be understood. Blessings to you, my friend.
Thanks so much Book.
I am thankful for you my friend.
blessings