It is generally accepted that only God can forgive sins as they are offences committed against Him by rational creatures like angels and human beings. If, therefore, sins are to be forgiven it has to come from God alone and the Jews of Jesus' time considered it a blasphemy when Jesus addressed the paralytic carried on a cot by four men thus: "My son, your sins are forgiven" (Mark, 2: 5). The Jews understood it as a blasphemy since it was playing God by a man like Jesus and the power of delegation of authority seems to have been ignored by them although it was not something unknown to them. The prophets, kings and priests were always believed to be acting in the name of God and even the forgiveness of sins through temple sacrifices and prayers by the priests were very much a part of their religion. Why did they, then, feel disgruntled in the case of Jesus as the concept was not anything unusual? There were two main reasons for their ill feelings towards Jesus especially from the part of the authorities who could easily influence the masses. The first reason was that Jesus was never inducted into the circle of official authority comprising kings, priests and prophets who were appointed by God Himself. This was the underlying reason the Jewish authorities wanted to know on whose authority Jesus took upon himself the task of cleansing the Jerusalem Temple (Mark, 11: 28). The second reason was the air of authority exuded from Jesus unknown to any other authority in both his teachings and actions that astounded the people( Matthew, 7: 28). This was in spite of the fact that Jesus had no formal training unlike the Jewish teachers (John, 7: 15), a prime example of whom was Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish Council, in his spiritual encounter with Jesus (John, 3: 1-15). Moreover, even the Pharisees could not answer the question put forward by Jesus about the Messiah being the son of David although he is addressed by David as his Lord (Matthew, 22: 41-46). When the Pharisees were embarrassed by their inability to answer such a vital question, the huge crowd that attended on Jesus heard him gladly (Mark, 12: 37).
Although it is a prerogative of God alone to forgive sins, as this authority could be delegated to His representatives the presence of such authority is not by itself proof of a person's divinity. Jesus himself invested the Apostles and through them the Church with the authority to forgive sins of men and women, which does not imply the bearers of such authority are equal to God. Jesus, however, referred to the privileged position of the Son of Man to forgive sins indirectly identifying himself as both God and man. He proved it by means of the miraculous cure of the paralytic who was asked to get up, carry his bed and go home signifying that his words were effective also in forgiving sins. A miracle was needed at that time to establish the authority of the Son of Man to forgive sins , usually reserved to God alone, which need not be the case for later generations. This means that those who forgive sins in the Church need not perform any miracles to substantiate their credibility in forgiving sins, the reason being that what is required at the foundation need not be repeated again and again for orderly growth. Besides, no claim is made by those who have the delegated authority to forgive sins that they are equal to God. Moreover, when sins are forgiven in the Church through the Sacrament of Reconciliation, it is Christ himself who forgives them. The Son of Man stands as the cornerstone of the foundation laid on the Apostles and Prophets from where the Church grows a s a beautiful Temple of God (Ephesians, 2: 20). This unique position of Jesus Christ cannot be delegated or duplicated and therefore no miracle is required by everyone who has authority to forgive sins in the name of God as a proof of such authority.
Another outlandish claim, in the eyes of the Jews, made by Jesus was that he could change the rules concerning the observance of the Sabbath as he himself was the Lord of the Sabbath in his capacity as Son of Man. Anyone who knew the Law of Moses could never agree with this claim as it was prescribed by God Himself for all generations to come. After working for six days, the Jews had to keep the seventh day holy as it was the Sabbath of the Lord their God. It was applicable to their sons and daughters, slaves and even animals because the Lord Himself rested from all work after creating everything in six days blessing the Sabbath and declaring it holy ( Exodus, 20: 10-11; 23:12; Deuteronomy, 5: 14). Apparently this holy Law was violated by the Apostles by plucking corns and eating them while passing through a cornfield in the company of Jesus (Luke, 6: 1-5). Some Pharisees objected and asked why they were doing what was forbidden on the Sabbath. If we read the parallel passages in Mark and Matthew, it would not be immediately clear what was forbidden in the act as they did not reproduce all the points touched upon in the Law. Deuteronomy 23: 25 says: " When you go into another man's standing corn, you may pluck ears to rub in your hands, but you may not put a sickle to his standing corn". Luke, on the other hand, was careful to note the detail that the Apostles plucked the corn and rubbed them in their hands before eating them. That was in agreement with the injunction in Deuteronomy 23:25. It was a mere rule of conduct an Israelite should follow along with many other instructions for a just and honest life and yet for the Pharisees it constituted work forbidden on the Sabbath. In his retort to the notion of Sabbath held by the Pharisees, Jesus resorted to two instances, one from the past and another from the present, for vindicating the action of the Apostles. He took the stand that what the Apostles did was no violation of the Sabbath considering what David did in the past and the priests in the Temple do in the present without violating the Sabbath (Matthew, 12: 3-5).
Jesus added two very important points by saying that there was something greater than the Temple there and that they should learn the meaning of the injunction: "I require mercy, not sacrifice" whereby they could have abstained from condemning the innocent. The underlying reason for the upsetting of their values is in the fact that the Son of Man is Lord of even the Sabbath (Matthew, 12: 6-8). Another fundamental reason for the innocence of the Apostles, although apparently they did something forbidden on the Sabbath, was that the Sabbath was made for the sake of man and not man for the Sabbath (Mark, 2: 27). That God Himself rested from work on the Sabbath day was given as the reason for keeping the Sabbath holy and yet the reason for Jesus' healing work on the Sabbath was because his own Father never ceased working (John, 5:17). There is no contradiction here as the work of creation in six days, as the foundation of everything else, was something not required to be repeated, whereas God is always at work in creating, protecting and governing the world. The rest from work of God as understood by the Old Testament writers in its true spirit and the unceasing work of God declared by Jesus in the New Testament are not contradictory, but complementary.
The ultimate reason for the Son of Man being the Lord of the Sabbath is the unquestionable dignity of man entrusted to him by God Himself (Mark, 2: 27-28) on the basis of the fact that the Son of Man himself is both God and Man. It also means that without the Son of Man standing up for our cause , we are doomed, bereft of all dignity, to self-destruction. No human being is able to be saved from the continuous and ever looming threats against humanity without the aid of the Son of Man who has laid a solid foundation for the well-being of humanity. Various kinds of human laws as well as interpretations of divine laws stand as one set of the many obstacles challenging human freedom and wholeness recognized as inalienable to human dignity by Jesus Christ. He did not mean to abolish any law, but only wanted to see them in their proper perspectives aiding human integrity and soundness in the presence of God. The same principle of accepting the given culture , laws, mores and customs of peoples as long as they do not infringe on the dignity of the humans should be the guiding principle for the Church, which professes to represent Jesus Christ, in bearing witness to her Lord. We shall see in the next Posts how the Son of Man achieved the Herculean task of rescuing human dignity from forces bent upon dragging men and women to their own destruction by fortifying the human spirit with pearls of wisdom unavailable in the world. (To be cont'd).
Although it is a prerogative of God alone to forgive sins, as this authority could be delegated to His representatives the presence of such authority is not by itself proof of a person's divinity. Jesus himself invested the Apostles and through them the Church with the authority to forgive sins of men and women, which does not imply the bearers of such authority are equal to God. Jesus, however, referred to the privileged position of the Son of Man to forgive sins indirectly identifying himself as both God and man. He proved it by means of the miraculous cure of the paralytic who was asked to get up, carry his bed and go home signifying that his words were effective also in forgiving sins. A miracle was needed at that time to establish the authority of the Son of Man to forgive sins , usually reserved to God alone, which need not be the case for later generations. This means that those who forgive sins in the Church need not perform any miracles to substantiate their credibility in forgiving sins, the reason being that what is required at the foundation need not be repeated again and again for orderly growth. Besides, no claim is made by those who have the delegated authority to forgive sins that they are equal to God. Moreover, when sins are forgiven in the Church through the Sacrament of Reconciliation, it is Christ himself who forgives them. The Son of Man stands as the cornerstone of the foundation laid on the Apostles and Prophets from where the Church grows a s a beautiful Temple of God (Ephesians, 2: 20). This unique position of Jesus Christ cannot be delegated or duplicated and therefore no miracle is required by everyone who has authority to forgive sins in the name of God as a proof of such authority.
Another outlandish claim, in the eyes of the Jews, made by Jesus was that he could change the rules concerning the observance of the Sabbath as he himself was the Lord of the Sabbath in his capacity as Son of Man. Anyone who knew the Law of Moses could never agree with this claim as it was prescribed by God Himself for all generations to come. After working for six days, the Jews had to keep the seventh day holy as it was the Sabbath of the Lord their God. It was applicable to their sons and daughters, slaves and even animals because the Lord Himself rested from all work after creating everything in six days blessing the Sabbath and declaring it holy ( Exodus, 20: 10-11; 23:12; Deuteronomy, 5: 14). Apparently this holy Law was violated by the Apostles by plucking corns and eating them while passing through a cornfield in the company of Jesus (Luke, 6: 1-5). Some Pharisees objected and asked why they were doing what was forbidden on the Sabbath. If we read the parallel passages in Mark and Matthew, it would not be immediately clear what was forbidden in the act as they did not reproduce all the points touched upon in the Law. Deuteronomy 23: 25 says: " When you go into another man's standing corn, you may pluck ears to rub in your hands, but you may not put a sickle to his standing corn". Luke, on the other hand, was careful to note the detail that the Apostles plucked the corn and rubbed them in their hands before eating them. That was in agreement with the injunction in Deuteronomy 23:25. It was a mere rule of conduct an Israelite should follow along with many other instructions for a just and honest life and yet for the Pharisees it constituted work forbidden on the Sabbath. In his retort to the notion of Sabbath held by the Pharisees, Jesus resorted to two instances, one from the past and another from the present, for vindicating the action of the Apostles. He took the stand that what the Apostles did was no violation of the Sabbath considering what David did in the past and the priests in the Temple do in the present without violating the Sabbath (Matthew, 12: 3-5).
Jesus added two very important points by saying that there was something greater than the Temple there and that they should learn the meaning of the injunction: "I require mercy, not sacrifice" whereby they could have abstained from condemning the innocent. The underlying reason for the upsetting of their values is in the fact that the Son of Man is Lord of even the Sabbath (Matthew, 12: 6-8). Another fundamental reason for the innocence of the Apostles, although apparently they did something forbidden on the Sabbath, was that the Sabbath was made for the sake of man and not man for the Sabbath (Mark, 2: 27). That God Himself rested from work on the Sabbath day was given as the reason for keeping the Sabbath holy and yet the reason for Jesus' healing work on the Sabbath was because his own Father never ceased working (John, 5:17). There is no contradiction here as the work of creation in six days, as the foundation of everything else, was something not required to be repeated, whereas God is always at work in creating, protecting and governing the world. The rest from work of God as understood by the Old Testament writers in its true spirit and the unceasing work of God declared by Jesus in the New Testament are not contradictory, but complementary.
The ultimate reason for the Son of Man being the Lord of the Sabbath is the unquestionable dignity of man entrusted to him by God Himself (Mark, 2: 27-28) on the basis of the fact that the Son of Man himself is both God and Man. It also means that without the Son of Man standing up for our cause , we are doomed, bereft of all dignity, to self-destruction. No human being is able to be saved from the continuous and ever looming threats against humanity without the aid of the Son of Man who has laid a solid foundation for the well-being of humanity. Various kinds of human laws as well as interpretations of divine laws stand as one set of the many obstacles challenging human freedom and wholeness recognized as inalienable to human dignity by Jesus Christ. He did not mean to abolish any law, but only wanted to see them in their proper perspectives aiding human integrity and soundness in the presence of God. The same principle of accepting the given culture , laws, mores and customs of peoples as long as they do not infringe on the dignity of the humans should be the guiding principle for the Church, which professes to represent Jesus Christ, in bearing witness to her Lord. We shall see in the next Posts how the Son of Man achieved the Herculean task of rescuing human dignity from forces bent upon dragging men and women to their own destruction by fortifying the human spirit with pearls of wisdom unavailable in the world. (To be cont'd).
No comments:
Post a Comment