When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven." Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, "Why does this fellow speak in this way? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (Mark 2:5-7 NRSV)
It is common for Trinitarians to argue that, as Jesus is said to have forgiven sins, he must be one within God within the "divine identity." However, this is a problematic argument for many reasons.
Firstly, it is to commit the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent:
First Premise: God forgives sins
Second Premise: Jesus forgives sins
Conclusion: Jesus is God (in the Trinitarian sense)
To see how fallacious this reasoning is, consider the following:
First Premise: Yahweh is Lord (Deut 6:4)
Second Premise: David is called "Lord" (1 Sam 25:26, 41)
Conclusion: David is numerically identical to Yahweh
Here is another:
First Premise: Yahweh is said to be the only "saviour" (מוֹשִׁיעַ) in Isa 43:11
Second Premise: Othniel, the son of Kenaz, is a "saviour" (מוֹשִׁיעַ) in Judg 3:9
Conclusion: Othniel is numerically identical to Yahweh
First Premise: Only God knows the heart of man
Second Premise: Peter knew the heart of Ananias and his wife in Acts 5
Conclusion: Peter is Yahweh
First Premise: Only Yahweh knows the heart of man
Second Premise: David knew the heart of Eliab in 1 Sam 17:28
Conclusion: David is Yahweh
One could go on and on, but one should see the fallacious reasoning within the realm of structural logic. Indeed, logic, when applied correctly, refutes Trinitarianism.
In 1 Cor 8:6, creation is said to be εκ (from) the Father, while it is said to be δια (through/by) the Son. Now, again absolutising this pericope in the way Trinitarians wish to do, let us examine how this pericope is another nail in the coffin of the claim that "the Trinity flows from every page of the Bible":
First Premise: If Jesus is God within the sense of Trinitarian Christology, all things would be made from (εκ) him.
Second Premise: All things were not made from (εκ) Jesus.
Conclusion: Jesus is not God within the sense of Trinitarian Christology.
This is perfectly logical reasoning, called modus tollens. Not only do Trinitarians have to go against careful, scholarly exegesis of the Bible, but also logic.
In reality, when one carefully reads the Bible, it is clear that the Father has designated Jesus as the agent through whom the Father forgives sins. Later on in the Markan text, this is explicated:
At once, Jesus perceived in his spirit that they were discussing these questions among themselves; and he said to them, "Why do you raise such questions in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Stand up and take your mat and walk'? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"--he said to the paralytic--"I say to you, stand up and take your mat and go to your home." (2:8-11 NRSV)
This should be compared to Matt 28:18 where Jesus states that "All power is given unto me in heaven and earth," showing it was not intrinsically His prior to such (clearly supporting a form of subordinationist Christology). One should also see John 20:17 and the Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews, including Heb 1:8-9, where there is a God above Jesus, notwithstanding his exalted state. Indeed, according to the New Testament, Jesus is the ultimate apostle/agent of the Father, thus it would be proper for him to possess the authority (εξουσια) to forgive sins on his Father's (and God's) behalf.
In Heb 3:1, we read the following description of Jesus:
Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus.
The Greek term translated as "apostle" is αποστολος, referring to a messenger or an emissary. It is the noun form of the verb αποστελλω, "to send out." The Hebrew equivalents of this noun and verb would be שׁליח and שׁלח, respectively. The use of this term for Jesus vis-a-vis His relationship with the Father is further biblical evidence for His subordination to the Father.
In the Bible, the one who sends is greater than the one who is sent/apostle. For instance, note the description of John the Baptist:
There was a man sent (αποστελλω) from God, whose name was John. (John 1:6)
Obviously, John the Baptist is subordinate to God.
This verb is used of the relationship between the Father and the Son as well as the relationship between the Son and the apostles:
For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I come out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send (αποστελλω) me. (John 17:8)
As (καθος) thou hast sent (αποστελλω) me into the world, even so have I also sent (αποστελλω) them into the world. (John 17:18)
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent (αποστελλω) me . . . I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent (αποστελλω )me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me . . . O righteous father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent (αποστελλω )me. (John 17:21, 23, 25).
Such usage underscores (1) the subordination of the apostles to Jesus and, by extension, (2) the subordination of Jesus to the Father. Such is shown, for instance, in the usage of the conjunction καθος in John 17:18 (quoted above) which means “just as,” showing the reciprocal relationship between the Father and the Son with the Son and the apostles.
Indeed, Jesus commissions the apostles to forgive sins in a way similar to how the Father commissions Jesus to forgive sins in John 20:23. Daniel McClellan has recently posted an article on Markan Christology, I particular, in response to some recent comments by Michael F. Bird. In his article, Daniel wrote:
Indeed, the apostles themselves are said to play a role in the eschatological judgment:
While much more could be said about this important issue, it is clear that Trinitarian apologists are fighting a losing battle on many fronts, including logical and exegetical in an attempt to use Jesus' forgiving sins as evidence of the Latin/Creedal concepts of the Trinity.
Indeed, Jesus commissions the apostles to forgive sins in a way similar to how the Father commissions Jesus to forgive sins in John 20:23. Daniel McClellan has recently posted an article on Markan Christology, I particular, in response to some recent comments by Michael F. Bird. In his article, Daniel wrote:
In addition to the facts that the “person/being” distinction is utterly irrelevant to these texts and that the second concern is a difference of degrees, not kind, the passages Bird cites in the earlier quote are cases of interpolation (see here). They didn’t originally refer to the messenger as God. While it’s true the interpolated texts were later incorporated into a broader theology of presencing, this fact rather undermines Bird’s attempt to distance the conceptualization of the messenger of YHWH from the conceptualization of Jesus. The messenger became identified with God and God’s presence and authority in virtue of possessing God’s name, as we see in Exod 23:20–21:
Look, I’m sending a messenger before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I prepared. Pay attention to him and listen to his voice. Do not rebel against him, because he will not pardon your transgressions, for my name is in him.
Christ’s possession of God’s name, in his own theophoric name as well as his repeated associated with “I am,” is conceptually identical. He has God’s name, therefore he presences God (reifies his presence) and exercises his authority. This notion of the “indwelling” of the name is found also in the Apocalypse of Abraham, where Yahoel is a name given to God, but also to an angel who meets with Abraham. The angel insists he exercises God’s power “in virtue of the ineffable name that is dwelling in me” (think also of the “place where my name will dwell”).
Interestingly enough, the Exodus 23 passage undermines one of the most common assertions that is made about Christ’s unique relationship with God in Mark. When Jesus forgives the man in Mark 2, the rhetorical bad guys wonder, “who can forgive sins but God only?” This is taken by some to be an accurate assertion of theological fact that means Jesus’ forgiveness of the man’s sins proves he is God, but a far more parsimonious reading has Jesus correct their misunderstanding by showing that he exercises that very power despite not being God. The objection that is usually lodged here is that there are no other examples anywhere of someone other than God having the prerogative to forgive sins. While this objection is an argument from silence, it’s also wrong. The messenger in Exodus 23, who’s presencing of God is likely a reflection of those earlier interpolated texts, exercises precisely that prerogative in virtue of having God’s name in him.
This is a pretty spot-on analysis about the concept of the agent (Shaliach) relationship between God and His messengers, including the relationship between the Father and the Son in the New Testament; such a theme is important in analysing the Christology of the Bible, including Heb 3:1 which was discussed above.
With respect to the Angel of Yahweh (discussed in the quotation from Daniel McCllelan above), the Israelites are told that, in
Be attentive to him and listen to his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression (לֹ֤א יִשָּׂא֙ לְפִשְׁעֲכֶ֔ם), for my name is in him. (NRSV)
As the Angel of Yahweh is said to not forgive the people’s transgressions if they fail to obey him, one could infer, in principle, that this angel has authority to forgive sins; indeed, that is how the Targums and the Masoretes interpreted this verse to mean.
This concept is also part-and-parcel of Latter-day Saint Christology (e.g., the 1916 First Presidency Statement on the relationship between the Father and the Son has an entire section on divine investiture).
Another prime example would be the agentival relationship between Christ and His apostles, which mirrors that of the Father and the Son vis-à-vis the forgiveness of sins, as discussed by Daniel in his article.
In John 20:23, we read:
If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained. (NRSV)
A similar concept is found in uniquely Latter-day Saint Scripture; mirroring Matt 16:19 and John 20:23, we read the following in D&C 132:46:
And verily, verily, I say unto you, that whatsoever you seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever you bind on earth, in my name and by my word, saith the Lord, it shall be eternally bound in the heavens; and whosoever sins you remit on earth shall be remitted eternally in the heavens; and whosoever sins you retain on earth shall be retained in heaven.
Some may object to any appeal to John 20:23 as evidence of commissioned apostles of Christ having a role to play in granting forgiveness of sins. Some critics have argued that, as the Greek of John 20:23 uses the perfect tense, some have argued that the apostles were not being commissioned by Christ to be agents in forgiving sins, but merely declaring that their sins have been forgiven.
There are a number of problems with this type of reasoning.
Firstly, it makes the action of Christ nonsensical. If the person being told their sins were forgiven by the apostles already had their sins forgiven, such a declaration would not be required, as sins can only be forgiven once, and no man can usurp or trump God, making the declaration a moot point.
Secondly, one should note that the perfect tense in Koine Greek is used for a variety of purposes and cannot be translated adequately in all instances, nor can English properly express the idea of existing result which the Greek perfect conveys.
Thirdly, with respect to ἀφέωνται ("have been forgiven"), let us examine all other instances of this form (indicative perfect passive of αφιημι) in the Greek New Testament:
And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven (ἀφέωνται) thee. (Luke 5:20)
Whether it is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven (ἀφέωνται) thee; or to say, Rise up and walk? (Luke 5:23)
Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven (ἀφέωνται), for she loved much; but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little. And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. (ἀφέωνται) (Luke 7:47-48)
I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for his name's sake. (1 John 2:12)
In Luke 5:20 and 23, ἀφέωνται is used as a present tense, since the man’s sins were not forgiven prior to meeting with Jesus. The same applies for the adulterous woman in Luke 7:47-48--her sins, also, were not forgiven by Christ prior to her encounter with Jesus. This is confirmed by the fact that the present tense "is forgiven" (ἀφίεται) is used in v. 47 alongside ἀφέωνται with respect to people's recognition of a then-present forgiveness of sins.
In light of this, John 20:23 supports the apostles being commissioned agents of Jesus to act in his stead (just as Christ acts, as supreme agent, in the stead of the Father) with respect to forgiving sins, as it would be contradictory for the apostles to be told to forgive sins if the sins have already been forgiven by God. The use of the perfect tense, far from diminishing the apostles' abilities to forgive sins, only heighten the reality thereof.
A parallel in modern English would be how a person, if in receipt of a command to do an action, would state something akin to "consider it done" before it has been done; the use of the perfect tense would be to show that one is determined to do the task, not necessarily that the task has already been completed.
As with the language Christ used in the Last Supper accounts, this is another piece of exegetical evidence for an ordained New Covenant Priesthood, as well as providing important insights into the concept of the principal-agent relationship between the Father and the Son, as well as that of the Son and his apostles.
This is affirmed elsewhere with respect to the Father delegating eschatological judgment to the Son:
For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son. (John 5:22)
And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. (John 5:27)
And yet if I judge, my judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. (John 8:16)
And Jesus and unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matt 19:28)
That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Luke 22:30)
Something similar and just as potent is said by Paul in 1 Cor 6:2-3:
Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels--to say nothing of ordinary matters? (NRSV)
Using the reasoning of many Trinitarian apologists, the apostles are also part of the "divine identity" and numerically identical to Yahweh.
Other exegetical considerations result in the death-knell to Trinitarian claims. Commenting on the parallel account in Matt 9, one New Testament scholar in a monograph on the topic of Jesus and the forgiveness of sins, wrote the following:
Jesus’ command to the paralytic (9.6b) differs only stylistically from Mark’s version. In keeping with his tendency to abbreviate, Matthew concentrates on the healed paralytic’s act of rising and leaving (9.7), but dispenses with Mark’s reference to his taking up his pallet. More subsequent changes occur in 9.8. The vague Markan mention of ‘all’ is replaced by ‘the crowds’, which eliminates the impression that even the scribes may have joined in glorifying God. To denote the crowd’s reaction, Matthew deviates from Mark’s ‘be amazed’ (εξιστασθαι) and instead has ‘they feared’ (εφοβηθησαν) or ‘they marvelled’ (εθαυμασαν). Most importantly, the onlookers’ direct speech ‘We never saw anything like this’ is abandoned by Matthew in favour of the indirect ‘glorified God who had given such authority to human beings’ (τον δοντα εξουσιαν τοιαυτην τοις ανθρωποις).
It is reasonable to construe this authority as the authority to forgive sins already mentioned in 9.6, and the dative expresses the notion that this authority has been given to human beings, which is in keeping with Matthew’s standard use of language. I concur with the majority of interpreters who see in the ‘human beings’ a reference to the circle of disciples and, by extension, to the Church. (Tobias Hägerland, Jesus and the Forgiveness of Sins: An Aspect of His Prophetic Mission [Society for the New Testament Studies Monograph Series 150; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012], 42-3)
In other words, other human beings (i.e., those within the church [cf. Matt 16:18-19; 18:18, etc]) are given authority to forgive sins according to this pericope.
Luke 7:47 reads as follows:
Therefore, I tell you, her sins, which were many, have been forgiven; hence she has shown great love. But the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little. (NRSV)
The first instance of "forgiven" in this verse is ἀφέωνται, the third person indicative perfect passive of αφιημι; the second is ἀφίεται, the third person indicative present passive of the verb. The Gospel author clearly avoids using the active voice for the actions of Jesus. Hägerland comments on the importance of this detail thusly:
The passive is naturally taken to imply that the agent of forgiveness is God, and Jesus functions as his prophet, endowed with the ability to infer correctly from the woman's behavior that her sins have been forgiven. (Ibid., 59)
Commenting on Mark’s Christology, one recent scholar wrote the following:
As a further indication that in this first story about Jesus’s authority Mark does not mean to tell us that Jesus is, in fact, divine in some proto-Chalcedonian sense, it is worth observing that Mark describes the mission of the twelve in precisely the same terms as he describes Jesus’s work in 1:22-28. He calls the twelve, in chapter 3, in order to be with him but then also be sent out to preach and to have authority (εξουσιαν) to cast out demons. When he actually sends them out on their own in chapter 6, he bestows that very authority upon them (εδιδου αυτοις εξουσιαν των πνευματων των ακαθαρτων, v. 7), and the narrator reports that they did, in fact, preach repentance, cast out demons, and heal the inform (v. 13). Because Mark depicts Jesus bestowing this authority upon other people, the narrative leaves little room for concluding that having such authority is an indication that a person is divine. Instead, this is an indication of being a human specifically empowered and entrusted by God to exercise God’s authority on the earth. In fact, such is arguably the significance of εξουσια in each of its ten usages in Mark (1:22, 27; 2:10; 3:15; 6:7; 11:28 [2x], 29, 33; 13:34) . . . Forgiveness of sins is, in fact, a divine prerogative, but it is one whose mechanisms are, at times, mediated by human activities on earth. In Mark, the refocusing of forgiveness around the eschatological acts of John and the ministry of Jesus continues in the followers whom Jesus leaves behind. Although the authority to forgive sins marks Jesus as one who is enacting a unique ministry, especially inasmuch as the parallel of John looks forward to Jesus while the parallel of the community looks back to him, it does not indicate an ontological status of divinity for which the readers have otherwise not been prepared. The connection with John is far from fortuitous. In the pericope immediately following the temple clearing and sayings on prayer, Jesus is questioned by the religious leaders about the authority he has to do the things he does (particularly in the temple, 11:28). To this, Jesus replies by asking about John’s authority (11:29-30). The implication is clear: each has been in the divine prerogative of establishing forgiveness of sins, does not indicate ontological divinity or preexistence. (J.R. Daniel Kirk, A Man Attested by God: The Human Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2016], 278-79)