reprisals, but Mark does not tell us the reaction of the crowd or the owner of the house because his focus is elsewhere. We may assume that the paralytic was participatory in the initiative to seek Jesus. Hence, Mark tells us that Jesus sees their (i.e., the whole group) faith, but speaks to the paralytic (v. 5).
Jesus’ response in v. 5 appears somewhat inappropriate, but it becomes comprehensible when we bear in mind the biblical assumptions that (i) the greater problem bedeviling humanity is their estrangement from God (i.e., sin); and (ii) sin and sickness may be related. The latter is amply attested in the literature of the ancient world and the OT (e.g., Deut 28:27; Ps 107:17–18). A rabbinic saying runs: “A sick person does not arise from his sickness until all his sins are forgiven him” (b. Ned. 41a). Hence, healing and forgiveness often intersect (e.g., Ps 41:3–4; 103:3; Isa 38:17; 53:4–6).76 However, this is not always the case (cf. John 9:2–3), as there may be other factors at work.
Jesus’ speech caught the attention of the scribes. These were people of letters, as the Greek grammateus makes clear. However, in the Jewish context, the primary body of learning was the Torah, and hence, scribes in Mark’s Gospel were people who knew and taught the Torah.77 From their point of view, only God can forgive sins.78 So they criticize Jesus inwardly: “He’s blaspheming” (v. 7). To be sure, the priest has been given the role to pronounce God’s forgiveness through the rituals of the Temple. But it is unlikely Jesus is challenging the Temple here.79 In fact, as the drift of the narrative indicates, Jesus’ pronouncement is deemed to have arrogated to himself the sole prerogative of God.80
Blasphemy in the OT is a capital offense (Lev 24:10–16). Although there was no technical definition of what constituted blasphemy in Jesus’ day, the extant Jewish evidence connects it to speaking against God, pronouncing his unique name or claiming the unique prerogatives of God (m. Sanh. 7:5).81 Forgiveness of sins is one such prerogative (Exod 34:6–7; Isa 43:25; 44:22). This is reinforced continually through the annual Yom Kippur festival. However, there may be one instance where forgiveness of sins is attributed to a human being. In a fragment from the Qumran caves (4Q242), it is said that a Jewish diviner (or exorcist?) forgave Nabonidus’s sin. Because of its fragmentary nature, its meaning remains highly debated.82 Alternatively, this fragment may be regarded as the exception that proves the rule. All this means the religious leaders’ response in Mark is historically credible.
Mark’s phrase ei mē heis ho theos (v. 7) should be translated “except ‘God is one’.” This clumsy construction serves to make reference to the Shema (Deut 6:4–5), which functions somewhat like a Jewish creed. The Shema confesses that for Israel there is only one God, and she is to love this one God with her entire being.83 From the way the Markan narrative is set up, Jesus’ claim is interpreted by the scribes to have transgressed the sacred boundaries of their confession of one God. Jesus is therefore regarded as having put himself in an equal position with that one God. The Shema, therefore, should be the frame of reference for understanding this controversy.
Jesus’ reply to the scribe’s unspoken accusation (v. 9) has puzzled many readers. It is often assumed Jesus wants to demonstrate that it is easier to talk (i.e., to pronounce forgiveness of sins) than to act (i.e., perform a healing),84 but is there more than meets the eye? Furthermore, it is puzzling that Jesus would seek to demonstrate his authority to forgive by healing, since the ability to work miracles was not understood as proving that one possessed the special prerogative of God. As the narrative plays itself out, Jesus does not answer which is easier, but proceeds to demonstrate his authority by healing. Perhaps the way forward is to think of Jesus as conveying the notion that the healing and the offer of forgiveness are regarded as closely integrated, and not dichotomized. Both are beyond human ability, and come only as a gracious gift from God. This falls in line with much prophetic expectation, where the concept of eschatological shalom involves both reconciliation and renewal (Jer 33:6–9; Hos 2:16–23). But for those who have eyes only for the tangible, the healing will speak to them.
There is also an implicit challenge to the scribes’ theological understanding. If Jesus has indeed blasphemed by usurping God’s authority, how could he have healed, since God is presumably the one behind the healing?
The phrase “Son of Man” is used in Mark’s Gospel for the first time in v. 10. Much has been discussed about this title;85 we offer here just a summary of the key proposals, and indicate the stance taken.86 This phrase has been understood as a circumlocution for “I,” as referring to generic man or to an indefinite man, or even to a special class of men. It has also been understood as a messianic title. The view adopted here is that in its Aramaic form it can refer to man in general. In Dan 7:13, however, the phrase (without the article) is used poetically to contrast the beasts representing the earthly empires with the human figure that stands for God’s purpose and kingdom. Because of the importance of the book of Daniel in Jewish speculation on the end time, this literary figure is often utilized to speak of the climax of the kingdom story and the deliverance of God’s beleaguered people. In fact in the Similitudes of Enoch (1 En 37–71, dating unsure)87 and 4 Ezra (post AD 70), this figure is regarded as the Messiah. What all this means is that Dan 7:13 becomes the seedbed for the understanding of the role of the Son of Man in some circles, and may thus add new possibilities to an ordinary phrase.
With this serving as background, we can then argue: (1) that Jesus uses this designation to refer to himself (always with the definite article);88 (2) that he may have in mind the figure of Dan 7:13 as the exposition of the meaning of his ministry; (3) that such a term does not automatically convey the above idea, as the ordinary usage may refer to man in general; (4) that Jesus sees fit to remain ambiguous for important reasons; (5) that he sometimes also pours in new content to the meaning of the phrase such that even the usage of Dan 7:13–14 cannot fully explain it; and (6) that there is a profound convergence between his kingdom message and his self-understanding, because in both instances, hiddenness/ambiguity is a characteristic which could only be penetrated by faith. This is precisely how Mark presents Jesus, and it will be demonstrated as his narrative progresses.
To be sure, Dan 7:13–14 does not mention the authority to forgive sins. However, since the Son of Man is the figure who brings an end to the dominions of the world and unleashes the eschatological age, it is not difficult to extend this further to suppose he may be connected with the reconciliation between God and his people, a concept within which forgiveness is to be understood.
Without allowing the details to cloud the main point, we may say this controversy story highlights a major aspect of Jesus’ work: the forgiveness of sins. What has troubled Israel throughout her checkered history, namely the problem of sin, may potentially be resolved by Jesus. That said, we must not miss how the story is presented. Some scribes perceive Jesus’ actions as arrogating to himself the unique prerogative of God. There is no attempt on the part of Jesus either to clarify this or to avoid being misunderstood. Every dutiful Jew would have the obligation to do so when it concerns so important a tenet of the community as the Shema. Instead, Jesus provokes the scribes further by claiming to have the authority, as the Son of Man, to forgive sins, and backs it up with healing. The exclamation of the crowd serves, then, to highlight Jesus’ uniqueness (v. 12). So an implicit question is raised. It is not about Jesus’ status vis-à-vis the Temple. Instead, it is about his claims and the one God confessed in Israel’s Shema.
Improper Table Fellowship (2:13–17)
From the theme of the Son of Man’s authority to forgive sins, Mark moves on to show how Jesus receives sinners, especially the tax collectors. This controversy story contains no miracles, and it is often known as a pronouncement story because the main point of the story is found in the pronouncement given at the end.
Since Galilee was ruled by a client king supported by Rome, the toll envisaged here must have been collected for Herod Antipas’s government. This toll is not to be equated with the poll tax (cf. 12:13–17) or land tax which was paid directly to Rome and collected by royal officials in the case of Galilee. Rather, the toll was levied on goods or for the right of passage.89 As the Sea
