Our old friend Harry is at it again; he didn't challenge us with this one, but since he thought it was funny decided it pass it our way. The verses of concern:

Luke 5:24 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins, (he said unto the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy couch, and go into thine house. (parallels in Mark and Matthew)

Luke 23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.

The question: If Jesus has authority on earth to forgive sins, why does he ask the Father to do it in 23:34?

Harry was a little tickled by an explanation given by one nutty preacher who claimed that because Jesus was on the cross in 23:34, he was no longer "on the earth" (being lifted off the ground) and so had no authority to forgive sins ("power upon earth") -- in other words, if Jesus had jumped in the air while speaking to the paralytic, his blessing would have been ineffectual. Well, this is the kind of nonsense Harry thinks is top notch scholarship from our end; but for those who know better, here's a better answer.

In the NT, the relationship between God, Jesus, and believer is framed in terms of a client-patron relationship. God is the patron (like the big rich guy who gives gifts); the believer is the client (who gets the gifts, and in turn is loyal to and serves the patron); Jesus is the broker -- who is a go-between for the two, and who acts upon the authority of the patron.

In this light, the error Harry makes is not understanding that in both cases, Jesus is still the broker for God's forgiveness -- what we see above are two stages in the process: Luke 23:34 is the broker's request to the patron on the client's behalf -- an example of Jesus exercising the authority he has been given by letting the patron know who to forgive. Luke 5:24 represents the broker reporting the patron's answer to the client's request.

Now wasn't that a lot better than supposing Jesus lost his brokerage every time he hopped on one foot?

Recently (1/08) Harry made rather the fool of himself trying to answer this on John "That's Not My Blog!" Loftus' blog, in which he said:

Holding’s explanations to solve the above problem is that God is the patron, Jesus is the broker and the believer is the client are the result of a simplistic and confused methodology. Had Mr. Holding bothered to check the definitions of his terms in such standard references as Black’s Law Dictionary, 8 edition, he would have found that the terms patron and client are the same thing. Thus, in Black’s we find patron defined as: 1. "A regular customer or client of a business."

Needless to say, poor Harry earned himself an "instant Platinum Screwball 2008" nomination with this one. Checking Black's Law Dictionary for terms that have to do with the ancient client-patronage system is a monumental stupidity at best. I would recommend Harry start with something very simple (like this) to educate himself as far as what these terms mean in the context of serious study of the social world of the New Testament. Harry also rants:

Moreover, if Jesus is indeed the broker of divine forgiveness, than why was the Temple sacrificial system still valid; a system Jesus both defended and participated in?

Participated in? Really? What version of the Bible is that found in, where Jesus brings sacrifices to the Temple? Must be the CHV (Crazy Harry Version).

In the final analysis, the limited Christology of Luke as displayed in Luke 23: 34 remains highly problematic despite the meager and confused explanation given by J. P. Holding.

In the final analysis....Harry is just not too bright. He'd best stick with making prank phone calls.

Update (2/08) -- Harry just isn't smart enough to keep his mouth shut, apparently, and now has decided to experiment with thorough idiocy, since total ignorance doesn't seem exciting enough for him. In the last episode Harry made a fool of himself using Black's Law Dictionary to define ancient patronage terms. This time, he spends about four paragraphs whining about how we treat ignorant people like him before he gets to any actual arguments (but not an apology for his boneheaded error in using Black's as a source in his reply).

First, Harry claims I am "throwing out a concept of a totally unrelated society (Roman / Latin /secular) and use it to explain Jewish society (Near Eastern / Semitic / religious)." Um, news flash, Harry: The Jews experienced patronage too. Here's a hint: YHWH (suzerain = patron), Moses (broker of the covenant), Israel (clients). Scholars know this even if you don't; see for example here, where it says:

The conceptual structure of Hosea is governed by a postmonarchic metanarrative of YHWH as faithful patron, Israel as unfaithful client, YHWH as the one who punishes Israel.

Or maybe you can correct this person who is more educated than you:

While some of her criticism is deserved, an anthropological understanding of contingent honor in patron/client relations (i.e., for YHWH and Israel) and an appreciation for the challenges YHWH addresses to rival deities in Isaiah would have shown links with the model she dismisses.

(See here for how the suzerain model is equated with patronage.)

So far from being a "novel theological idea or wild card" as poor Harry says, this is merely mainstream Biblical scholarship -- it can be found in sources like deSilva's Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity and Pilch and Malina's Handbook of Biblical Social Values. Perhaps the reason Harry says "this theological claim is not discussed in any Biblical or Patristic commentary I know of" is simply because Harry is an ignoramus...or because his best Biblical commentary comes from someone like J. Vernon McGee. It is not I who has "limited resources" here.

Harry also doesn't understand how a dictionary on modern sociology with an article that never once mentions the "social world of the New Testament" or a Semitic world that based its theology on the idea of a Covenant made to Abraham and the Jewish people in keeping Torah ...(per my link before). Well, Harry, let me put it this way....I provided something so simple that even YOU could understand it. When you're a little more educated, THEN we can help you move on to things like deSilva and Malina -- assuming you're not too busy making prank phone calls.

Harry is indeed so ignorant that he states:

In light of this definition as understood by Holding, Yahweh had to have been chosen by the Israelites in order for him to become deified as their God (Patron) so the Israelites (Clients) could receive protection; a total reversal from the Biblical account in the Hebrew Bible!

Really? How, Harry? You mean Abraham was just hypnotized into following YHWH? And so were the Israelites in Joshua's time? That certainly is a new twist. (By the way, "recognized" would be better than "deified.")

Harry next whines that I "[fail] to understand that Jesus cry of forgiveness was as much to the Romans as to the Jews: Romans who were considered hated pagan and NOT under the Hebrew god Yahweh and his Covenant." I do? Erm, Harry? Was or was not the Christian message preached to those very Romans? Did or did not Jesus show favor to a Roman centurion and to other Gentiles?

Finally, Harry embarrasses himself the greatest amount of all by once again going to the wrong kind of source:

Now Holding's creative mind comes into play again by injecting a foreign and strange new concept in that Jesus was a "broker" which the business dictionary defines "as an negotiator between prospective buyers and sells … in matters of trade, commerce, or navigation"; or a term straight from Wall Street and Capitalism. Thus, Holding has not only missed used an ancient secular Roman concept forced on to a Semitic Covenanted people (who generally hated Romans rule with a passion), he now had to make up for his deficiency by using an anachronistic modern secular Stock Market term in which Jesus is the go between for a people already called by God!

A pause of several minutes, while we come to the realization of how stupid indeed Harry is.

Now then. A business dictionary. Really. COUGH. Maybe Harry can help this poor, ignorant Biblical scholar here:

Most importantly, the personnel of worship are dearly defined: the Patron Father who bestows benefaction on his clients by means of Jesus, the Broker. Jesus, in turn, brokers the concerns to the clients to the Patron.

I mean, goodness....the terms are still even used in modern settings, as here:

The present moribund state of what in the late 1970s and early 1980s was a pervasive patron-client system provides us with some revealing insights into some basic changes which have affected local class relations. A local Viet entrepreneur, Mr. A., played an important role as broker in the patron-client system from 1976 to 1982, when he abandoned this position for basically two reasons.

Is it starting to dawn on you, Harry, that you really ARE not that educated?

Oh yes. I asked what version of the Bible has Jesus participating in the Temple sacrifice system. He says:

....he should have considered the Christian Doctrine of the Atonement; the very bases for my post on Luke 23: 34 in the first place.

Really. I had no idea Jesus was crucified in the Temple. I suppose this really does come from the Crazy Harry Version.

Oh well. A much more honest and intelligent man would go away and hide now, but we know Harry, and he'll likely continue to bang his head against scholarship for a few more rounds. Ta ta.

Update, 2/22/08

Yawn....Harry apparently still hasn't had enough of making a fool of himself...let's see what the poor soul did this time...

Problem A: Holding cited me for using "A business dictionary" and yet he must go to a website entitled: BNET or Business Network: The go-to place for management (just check out most of his references).

Snort....check YOUR references, Harry....the article in question is reprinted from the Biblical Theology Bulletin and is on "findarticles.com" -- the BNET frame is some kind of advertisement or support mechanism that appears around ALL articles on that site...please, Harry, try to be stupider.

Problem B: He cites from the above Business Network a theologian from Notre Dame University, Jerome H. Neyrey, S.J., known for his modern sociological interpretations of the New Testament. His faculty profile reads as follows: "His current research project is God, In Other Words: Cultural Interpretation of the Christian Deity. His main scholarly effort has long been on the use of social science models and concepts for the interpretation of biblical documents." Holding quotes from his "Worship in the fourth gospel: A cultural interpretation of John 14 – 17: Part 2. So yes, only as a "cultural interpretation" can Jesus be a modern "Broker".

Um, Harry....aside from your stupid "business" error again...cultural interpretation is what allows us to see Jesus as an ancient broker...not a modern one. This is what I have been arguing all along. Well, I did ask you to be stupider, and you did it.

Problem C: Holding cites a dissertation by Johanna Stiebert entitled Construction of Shame in the Hebrew Bible: The Prophetic Contribution to prove his "patron-client" thesis when Ms. Stiebert clearly states she is only using a modern analog: "This could be read in analogy with his could be read in analogy with vassal – suzerain / patron-client." Again, notice the sentence section: "This could be "read in analogy..."

Your point being what, Harry? Are you so embarrassed and desperate now that you're trying to force-read some measure of doubt into Stiebert's "could"? And she's not saying anything about a "modern" analog either. You need to quote the whole context, silly:

Where the shame of the faithful is mentioned alongside the mocking of enemies, who sometimes revile Yhwh's name too, there may be an indication of an appeal to Yhwh's sense of obligation to his people. This could be read in analogy with vassal – suzerain / patron-client relationship (protection in exchange for loyalty), or imply that Yhwh himself is capable of feeling shame in the light of shortcoming or incongruity.

Harry rather stupidly only quotes the bolded portion and takes it to mean that Steibert somehow questions the vassal – suzerain / patron-client equation. Erm, no, Harry, that's not what's happening here. The whole context indicates that the "analogy" is correlated with the mention of shame and mocking -- not that the equation is an "analogy," modern or otherwise. You are very, very ignorant, Harry...and at this point, looking very foolish. More so.

Problem D: Holding totally confused my statement about the "wild card" theology of evangelist Layman Straus with his argument for the validation of Patron-Client. He stated: "So far from being a "novel theological idea or wild card" as poor Harry says, this is merely mainstream Biblical scholarship -- it can be found in sources like deSilva's Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity and Pilch and Malina's Handbook of Biblical Social Values."

JP, I did not know evangelist Layman Straus' "wild card" claim about Jesus being unable to forgive sins was "mainstream Biblical scholarship". Really! Now I’m learning just how uneducated I am.

Indeed we all are learning that about you, Harry. As anyone who can read can attest, I was not referring to Straus' theory; I was referring to patronage. It is YOU who is confused, you rather ignorant little person. :)

Problem E: Holding stated: "Really. I had no idea Jesus was crucified in the Temple. I suppose this really does come from the Crazy Harry Version". Fact is the atoning death of Jesus was felt in the Temple as the curtains were torn and the death of Jesus the negated the Temple sacrificial system (Matthew 27: 50 – 51). JP, go figure!

Oh I see. So now it seems that Jesus participated in the sacrificial system of the Temple by...the act of the tearing of the curtains. I see. See Harry. See Harry strain. See Harry's eyes bulge. See Harry's head explode.

The way I figure, Harry can't back up his claim that Jesus took part in the sacrifice system and is now gyrating wildly as his medication runs out.

Next time Holding might start with an etymological world study in Hebrew and Greek to avoid the anachronistic error of injecting authors of modern social science theories on to an ancient Near Eastern world.

Pffft....next time...we'll need an irony meter to replace the one Harry broke with that stupid statement...