Only God Can Forgive Sins, Yet Jesus Forgives Them
The argument from Mark 2 is one of the more serious Gospel arguments for the deity of Jesus. It should not be dismissed as though it were a mere misunderstanding by hostile scribes. In Mark 2:5 Jesus says to the paralytic, "Son, thy sins be forgiven thee." The scribes respond, "Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?" (Mark 2:7). Jesus then heals the man publicly "that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins" (Mark 2:10; compare Matthew 9:6; Luke 5:24). On a traditional Christian reading, Jesus does not correct the scribes' theological premise. He vindicates his authority by a miracle. Therefore, it is argued, Jesus is doing what only God can do.
That is the argument at its strongest. It has real force. The scribes are not objecting to ordinary interpersonal forgiveness, as when one human being forgives another for a wrong done directly to him. They are reacting to Jesus' pronouncement over the man's sins in the presence of God. In the Hebrew Bible, sin is ultimately against God, and atonement and remission belong to God's prerogative. When Jesus declares the paralytic forgiven without referring him to the temple, sacrifice, priesthood, or an explicit prophetic formula such as "Thus says the Lord," the scribes' alarm is understandable. Many Christian interpreters, from patristic writers to modern scholars such as R. T. France and Larry Hurtado, have seen here a significant christological claim: Jesus acts in a sphere belonging to God.
What the Text Actually Says
The key question, however, is whether Mark 2 requires the conclusion that Jesus is personally identical with God, or whether it establishes that God has authorized Jesus to pronounce and enact forgiveness. The text itself points strongly toward the second formulation.
"But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, he saith to the sick of the palsy, I say unto thee, Arise..." (Mark 2:10-11)
The word translated "power" in the King James Version is Greek exousia, more precisely "authority," "right," or "authorization." It is not the usual word for raw ability or inherent divine nature. Jesus' answer is not, "that you may know that I am God," but "that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins." The claim is still remarkable. But its grammatical form is authority-language, not identity-language.
Matthew's version makes this even clearer in its concluding line:
"But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men." (Matthew 9:8)
Again the term is exousia. Matthew's narrator does not say that the crowd glorified Jesus as God, but that they glorified God, "who had given such authority to men." One may argue that the crowd does not yet understand the full identity of Jesus. That is possible within Matthew's narrative. But the sentence as written supports the category of bestowed authority. At minimum, Matthew shows that the forgiveness episode can be narrated without collapsing Jesus into the God who gives the authority.
The Strongest Christian Reply
A careful defender of the traditional doctrine will reply that delegated authority does not exclude deity. In Trinitarian theology, the Son receives from the Father without being a mere creature. John's Gospel, for example, can say both exalted and subordinate things about Jesus. The Father gives life to the Son, yet the Son gives life to whom he will (John 5:21, 26). The Father gives judgment to the Son, yet all are to honor the Son as they honor the Father (John 5:22-23). Therefore, the fact that authority is "given" does not automatically disprove the deity of Christ.
This is an important reply. Christian orthodoxy has never claimed that the Son is the Father. It can accommodate language of mission, sending, and giving. John 5:26-27 says:
"For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; and hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man."
For Nicene theology, this is compatible with eternal generation and the economic mission of the Son. The Father gives; the Son receives; yet the Son shares divine life. Thus, an argument against a simplistic "Jesus receives authority, therefore he cannot be divine" would be too quick.
Still, that is not the same as saying Mark 2 by itself proves Jesus is God. The passage demonstrates that Jesus has authority from God to forgive sins on earth. It does not state the metaphysical reason for that authority in Nicene terms. A Trinitarian reading is possible, especially when Mark is read canonically alongside John and later Christian doctrine. But the immediate narrative logic is authorization: the Son of Man has been granted authority, and the miracle verifies it.
Forgiveness by God and Forgiveness Through Agents
The scribes' statement, "Who can forgive sins but God only?" is true in an ultimate sense. All sin, finally, is answerable to God. But the Bible also contains forms of forgiveness mediated through human beings. This does not make those human beings God.
In Genesis 50:17, Joseph's brothers ask him:
"Forgive, I pray thee now, the trespass of thy brethren, and their sin; for they did unto thee evil."
Joseph is asked to forgive a real "trespass" and "sin" committed against him. This is not identical to divine absolution, but it shows that the language "forgive sins" is not, in every possible context, an action only God can perform. Likewise, Paul commands Christians:
"Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another... even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye." (Colossians 3:13)
Human forgiveness is commanded as imitation of divine or Christlike forgiveness. Again, this does not reduce Mark 2 to ordinary interpersonal reconciliation. The paralytic has not wronged Jesus in any obvious narrative sense. Jesus is pronouncing forgiveness before God. That is why the scene is so weighty. But the wider biblical usage warns against an absolute syllogism: "Forgiveness of sins occurs; only God in every sense can forgive sins; therefore the forgiver must be God." Scripture itself is more nuanced.
John 20 and Delegated Remission
John 20:23 is especially relevant:
"Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained."
Here the risen Jesus gives his disciples authority related to the remission and retention of sins. Christian traditions interpret this differently. Roman Catholic and Orthodox theology often connect it with ecclesial and sacramental authority. Many Protestants understand it as the church's authority to proclaim the gospel, declaring forgiveness to those who repent and warning the unrepentant. In either case, the text gives human agents a real role in the administration or declaration of forgiveness.
This matters because if Mark 2 meant that any exercise of forgiveness-language over sin is by definition an act only a divine person can perform, John 20:23 would become difficult to explain. The disciples are not thereby made divine. Their authority is derivative. They remit because Jesus sends them; Jesus forgives because the Father has sent and authorized him. The pattern of agency is built into the New Testament.
The strongest Christian distinction is that the disciples forgive ministerially, while Jesus forgives sovereignly. That distinction has merit. In Mark 2, Jesus speaks directly and effectively: "Thy sins be forgiven thee." He does not say, "God has forgiven you," though some scholars understand the wording as a divine passive, meaning "your sins are forgiven by God." Even if so, Jesus still claims unique authority to make that pronouncement. The disciples in John 20 act after Jesus' resurrection and commissioning; their authority is derivative from him. Therefore John 20 does not erase the uniqueness of Mark 2.
But it does show that forgiveness of sins can be exercised through authorized representatives. The presence of such representation weakens the claim that Mark 2 proves deity by a simple logical rule. The argument must be more carefully stated: Jesus' manner of forgiving sins is extraordinary and may imply a unique divine status, especially within a broader high christology; but the mere fact of forgiving or remitting sins does not, by itself, establish ontological deity.
The Son of Man and Authority on Earth
Jesus identifies himself in this episode as "the Son of Man." The phrase can mean a human figure, but in some contexts it evokes Daniel 7, where "one like a son of man" receives dominion from the Ancient of Days. That Danielic background is important for many Christian interpreters. The Son of Man receives authority from God and exercises it universally. This again produces a high christology, but it is still a received authority: the figure is given dominion.
Mark 2 fits that pattern well. Jesus does not merely teach about forgiveness; he embodies God's reign by healing, restoring, and declaring sins forgiven. Yet the explanatory category given in the passage is that the Son of Man "has authority on earth." Authority may be divine in origin without requiring that the authorized agent be identical with the one who grants it.
What the Argument Establishes
Mark 2 is strong evidence that Jesus saw himself, and was presented by the evangelists, as more than a conventional teacher or prophet. He speaks with direct authority over sin. The scribes recognize that such authority belongs ultimately to God. Jesus does not retreat from the claim; he vindicates it by healing the paralytic. A low view of Jesus that makes him merely a moral instructor does not do justice to the passage.
But the passage does not, by itself, prove the full doctrine of Jesus' deity. Jesus' own explanation is framed in terms of exousia, authority. Matthew's conclusion says God had given such authority. John 5:26-27 explicitly says the Father "hath given" the Son life and authority to judge. John 20:23 extends remission and retention of sins to the disciples in a derivative way. Genesis 50:17 and Colossians 3:13 show that biblical forgiveness-language is not restricted to God in every respect.
The best conclusion is therefore measured. Mark 2 supports a very high view of Jesus' mission and authority. It is compatible with Trinitarian christology and has often been used in its defense. Yet as an argument, "Only God can forgive sins; Jesus forgives sins; therefore Jesus is God" overstates what the text strictly demonstrates. The text establishes that Jesus, as the Son of Man, has God-given authority on earth to forgive sins. Whether that authority implies ontological deity must be argued from the broader pattern of New Testament christology, not from Mark 2:7 alone.