The One Who Forgives Iniquity
Forgiveness belongs to the revealed identity of YHWH. From Sinai to the Psalms and Isaiah, Israel’s Scriptures locate the removal of sin ultimately in God Himself. Yet in the Gospels, Jesus does more than announce divine pardon: He claims authority on earth to forgive sins, perceives the hidden reasoning of the heart, and leaves His witnesses asking the question the narrative refuses to answer for them: Who, then, is this?
Exodus 34, Mark 2, and the Sovereign Prerogative of Absolution
“The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin...”
— Exodus 34:6–7
Forgiveness stands near the center of YHWH’s self-disclosure in Israel’s Scriptures. At Sinai, following the catastrophe of the golden calf, YHWH descends in the cloud and proclaims His own name. He is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, abundant in steadfast love, and “forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin” (Exod 34:6–7). Forgiveness is therefore not introduced merely as an abstract principle of divine benevolence. It belongs to the character and covenantal action of YHWH Himself.
This makes the controversy in Mark 2 particularly significant. When Jesus tells a paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven,” the scribes do not treat the declaration as an ordinary word of consolation. They reason among themselves: “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Mark 2:5–7).
The question raised by the narrative is therefore sharper than whether Jesus possesses unusual spiritual authority. Israel’s Scriptures repeatedly locate the removal of sin in the action of YHWH. Priests mediate atonement and prophets announce forgiveness, but God remains its source. Mark places Jesus within that scriptural world and allows the resulting tension to emerge from the narrative itself. What is being claimed when the Son of Man exercises authority on earth to forgive sins?
The God Who Forgives Iniquity
The setting of Exodus 34 is essential. Israel has violated the covenant almost immediately after receiving it. While Moses remains on the mountain, the people fashion the golden calf and attribute their deliverance from Egypt to it. The breach is not peripheral. Israel has turned from the God who brought them out of bondage and directed worship toward another image.
Moses intercedes and even offers himself: “But now, if you will forgive their sin, but if not, please blot me out of your book that you have written” (Exod 32:32). YHWH does not accept Moses as the one who can resolve Israel’s guilt. Judgment remains His, as does the decision concerning the continuation of His covenant presence.
Against this background, Exodus 34 becomes extraordinary. YHWH passes before Moses and proclaims Himself “merciful and gracious” and “forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin.” The expression translated “forgiving iniquity” uses nāśāʾ, a verb whose semantic range includes lifting, carrying, and bearing. Here it describes YHWH in relation to Israel’s guilt. The threefold language of “iniquity and transgression and sin” gives the declaration unusual comprehensiveness.
Yet forgiveness is not separated from judgment. The same proclamation continues by declaring that YHWH “will by no means clear the guilty” (Exod 34:7). Mercy and judgment therefore belong to the same divine subject. The One who judges rebellion is also the One who bears iniquity and forgives it. Crucially, this description of forgiveness occurs within the proclamation of YHWH’s own name. Israel learns who forgives by hearing who YHWH declares Himself to be.
“I Am He Who Blots Out Your Transgressions”
The same pattern becomes especially explicit in Isaiah. Speaking to a sinful Israel, YHWH declares: “I, I am he who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins” (Isa 43:25). The emphasis falls unmistakably upon the divine subject: “I, I am he.” The surrounding context strengthens that emphasis. Israel has burdened YHWH with sins and wearied Him with iniquities (Isa 43:24), yet the offended party is Himself the one who removes the offense.
The Psalms speak similarly. Psalm 103 summons the worshiper to bless YHWH, “who forgives all your iniquity, who heals all your diseases” (Ps 103:3). Psalm 130 places the matter with equal clarity: “If you, O LORD, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand? But with you there is forgiveness” (Ps 130:3–4).
Psalm 51 adds another dimension. David’s sin has inflicted devastating harm upon other human beings, yet his confession reaches beyond its horizontal consequences: “Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight” (Ps 51:4). The statement does not erase David’s offenses against Bathsheba and Uriah. It identifies the ultimate theological dimension of sin. Human transgression is ultimately an offense before God.
The connection between sin and forgiveness is therefore deeply personal. YHWH is not merely an administrator standing outside the moral crisis. He is the covenant Lord against whom rebellion is committed and the One from whom forgiveness proceeds.
Priests, Prophets, and Forgiveness
Israel nevertheless possessed genuine human mediation of forgiveness, and this must remain part of the argument. The sacrificial texts repeatedly describe the priest making atonement, followed by the declaration that the offender “shall be forgiven” (Lev 4:20, 26, 31, 35). The priest therefore performs a divinely appointed function. His role should neither be minimized nor confused with the role of YHWH.
The distinction appears in the grammar of the ritual itself. The priest makes atonement according to the means God has appointed, and forgiveness follows. The priest is not ordinarily presented as the offended divine party personally cancelling the sinner’s guilt. He ministers within a covenantal order whose efficacy depends upon YHWH.
The prophetic pattern is similarly instructive. After David confesses his sin concerning Bathsheba and Uriah, Nathan tells him, “The LORD also has put away your sin; you shall not die” (2 Sam 12:13). Nathan announces forgiveness with extraordinary authority, but his words identify its source. He does not say, “I have put away your sin.” He declares what YHWH has done.
Scripture can therefore authorize human agents to mediate atonement or announce divine pardon without presenting those agents as the ultimate source from whom forgiveness proceeds. This distinction becomes important when Jesus enters the house at Capernaum.
“Who Can Forgive Sins but God Alone?”
Jesus is teaching in a crowded house when four men lower a paralytic through the roof. The expected concern is obvious: the man cannot walk. Yet Jesus addresses something that no observer can see: “Son, your sins are forgiven” (Mark 2:5).
Some scribes immediately reason in their hearts: “Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Mark 2:7). Their reaction establishes the theological tension of the narrative. Their question also stands naturally within the scriptural pattern already established: forgiveness returns ultimately to God.
The passive expression “your sins are forgiven” could, by itself, be heard as a declaration of forgiveness granted by God, much as a prophet could announce a divine decision. Mark, however, carries the scene beyond the initial pronouncement.
Jesus perceives what the scribes are reasoning within themselves and asks, “Why do you question these things in your hearts?” (Mark 2:8). He then confronts their objection directly: “Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise, take up your bed and walk’?” (Mark 2:9). Finally, He explains the purpose of the sign that follows: “But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...” (Mark 2:10).
The paralytic rises. The visible restoration vindicates the invisible claim.
The One Who Knows the Heart
There is another feature of the scene that deserves attention. Before Jesus publicly answers the scribes, Mark says that He perceives “in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves” (Mark 2:8). The controversy therefore unfolds on two invisible levels at once. Jesus addresses the unseen guilt of the paralytic and perceives the unseen reasoning of His opponents.
Mark does not identify Jesus’ perception as the fulfillment of a particular Old Testament passage. Yet within Israel’s Scriptures, knowledge of the human interior belongs preeminently to God. Solomon confesses that YHWH alone knows the hearts of all humanity (1 Kgs 8:39), while Jeremiah declares that YHWH searches the heart and tests the mind (Jer 17:10), a theme explored more fully in The Searcher of Hearts.
The narrative therefore possesses a striking concentration. Jesus speaks concerning sins hidden from ordinary sight, perceives reasoning occurring within human hearts, and then claims authority to forgive. Taken together, these features deepen the identity question already generated by the scribes’ objection.
Authority on Earth
The word Mark uses is exousia, “authority.” Its precise significance emerges from the narrative context, particularly from the object and location of that authority: the Son of Man possesses authority “on earth to forgive sins.”
The expression “on earth” gives the scene particular force. Jesus is not speaking within the sanctuary in Jerusalem, nor does Mark narrate a sacrifice or priestly declaration before the paralytic receives the word of forgiveness. The setting is an ordinary house in Capernaum. Forgiveness is being exercised in a strikingly immediate manner through the authority of Jesus Himself.
Mark does not explain the phenomenon through an abstract theological formula. He gives the reader an event. Jesus pronounces forgiveness, claims authority to forgive, commands the paralytic to rise, and the man walks before everyone. The crowd responds by glorifying God, declaring, “We never saw anything like this!” (Mark 2:12).
Neither had Israel.
The Son of Man Who Forgives
Jesus identifies the bearer of this authority as “the Son of Man.” Daniel 7 naturally stands within the possible scriptural background of this expression, particularly as Mark develops the title elsewhere. Daniel sees “one like a son of man” approaching the Ancient of Days and receiving dominion, glory, and an everlasting kingdom (Dan 7:13–14).
Daniel’s vision does not explicitly attribute the forgiveness of sins to the Son of Man. It does, however, provide a significant background for the extraordinary authority associated with the figure. Mark 2 places that authority within a new and striking setting: the Son of Man possesses authority on earth to forgive sins.
The narrative does not stop to provide a systematic account of how this authority relates to the identity of Jesus. Instead, Mark places two statements beside one another. The scribes ask, “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” Jesus declares, “The Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.”
The force arises from the juxtaposition.
The Creditor at the Table
Luke preserves another episode in which forgiveness provokes a question about Jesus’ identity. While Jesus is dining in the house of Simon the Pharisee, a woman known as a sinner enters, weeps at His feet, wipes them with her hair, kisses them, and anoints them. Jesus responds to Simon with a parable about two debtors. One owes five hundred denarii and the other fifty. Neither possesses the means to repay, so their creditor freely cancels both debts. Jesus then asks Simon, “Now which of them will love him more?” (Luke 7:42).
Simon answers correctly: the one whose greater debt was forgiven. Jesus immediately turns toward the woman and contrasts her actions toward Him with Simon’s deficient hospitality. Simon provided no water for Jesus’ feet; she has wet them with her tears. Simon gave Him no kiss; she has not ceased kissing His feet. Simon did not anoint His head; she has anointed His feet with ointment. Her extraordinary love is thus interpreted through a parable in which extraordinary love arises from extraordinary forgiveness.
The narrative positioning is difficult to miss. The woman’s love is directed concretely toward Jesus, while the preceding parable has explained such love as the response of a debtor to the creditor who cancelled the debt. Jesus then declares, “Her sins, which are many, are forgiven” (Luke 7:47), before addressing her directly: “Your sins are forgiven” (Luke 7:48).
Those reclining at the table respond with a question remarkably similar to the one raised in Capernaum: “Who is this, who even forgives sins?” (Luke 7:49). The Evangelist does not interrupt the narrative to supply an abstract answer. The question itself becomes part of the Christological significance of the scene.
From Sinai to Capernaum
The trajectory has brought the question into focus. Israel’s Scriptures locate forgiveness ultimately with YHWH, while distinguishing His action from the mediation of priests and the declarations of prophets. The Gospels then place Jesus before sinners not merely announcing that forgiveness exists, but claiming authority to forgive and exercising that authority in their presence.
Significantly, the scribes’ premise is never overturned. Jesus does not answer, “Others can forgive sins as well.” Instead, He claims that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive them. At Simon’s table, the same question of identity surfaces again, now in response to Jesus’ pronouncement of forgiveness.
Israel already knew who forgives iniquity.
The question raised by the Gospel is more unsettling:
Who, then, is this?
That question lies at the heart of No Other Beside Me: The Disclosure of the Single Subject, where the biblical identity of the One revealed in Christ is pursued across the wider scriptural witness.