Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Luke 5:21
And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?
21. Who is this ] The word used for ‘this person’ is contemptuous. St Matthew puts it still more barely, ‘This fellow blasphemes,’ and to indulge such thoughts and feelings was distinctly “to think evil thoughts.”
blasphemies ] In classical Greek the word means abuse and injurious talk, but the Jews used it specially of curses against God, or claiming His attributes (Mat 26:65; Joh 10:36).
Who can forgive sins, but God alone ] The remark in itself was not unnatural, Psa 32:5; Isa 43:25; but they captiously overlooked the possibility of a delegated authority, and the ordinary declaratory idioms of language, which might have shewn them that blasphemy was a thing impossible to Christ, even if they were not yet prepared to admit the Divine Power which He had already exhibited.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 21. Who can forgive sins, but God alone?] If Jesus were not God, he could not forgive sins; and his arrogating this authority would have been blasphemy against God, in the most proper sense of the word. That these scribes and Pharisees might have the fullest proof of his Godhead, he works in their presence three miracles, which from their nature could only be effected by an omniscient and omnipotent Being. The miracles are:
1. The remission of the poor man’s sins.
2. The discernment of the secret thoughts of the scribes.
3. The restoration of the paralytic in an instant to perfect soundness.
See note on Mt 9:5; Mt 9:6.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
And the Scribes and the Pharisees began to reason,…. To think and say within themselves, and it may be to one another, in a private manner:
saying, who is this which speaketh blasphemies? what vain boaster, and blaspheming creature is this, who assumes that to himself, which is the prerogative of God?
Who can forgive sins but God alone? against whom they are committed, whose law is transgressed, and his will disobeyed, and his justice injured and affronted. Certain it is, that none can forgive sins but God; not any of the angels in heaven, or men on earth; not holy good men, nor ministers of the Gospel; and if Christ had been a mere man, though ever so good a man, even a sinless one, or ever so great a prophet, he could not have forgiven sin; but he is truly and properly God, as his being a discerner of the thoughts of these men, and his healing the paralytic man in the manner he did, are sufficient proofs. The Scribes and Pharisees therefore, though they rightly ascribe forgiveness of sin to God alone, yet grievously sinned, in imputing blasphemy to Christ: they had wrong notions of Christ, concluding him to be but a mere man, against the light and evidence of his works and miracles; and also of his office as a Redeemer, who came to save his people from their sins; and seem to restrain the power of forgiving sin to God the Father, whereas the Son of God, being equal with him, had the same power, and that even on earth, to forgive sin; [See comments on Mr 2:7].
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
But God alone ( ). Mark has (one) instead of (alone).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
To reason. See on Mr 2:6. The words who is this that speaketh blasphemy, form an iambic verse in the Greek.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason,” (kai erksato dialogizesthai hoi grammateis kai hoi Pharisaioi) “And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason,” with skeptical cynicism, sarcasm, and protest, Mat 9:3; Mar 2:6.
2) “Saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies?” (legontes tis estin houtos hos lalei blasphemias) “Repeatedly saying, who is this one (they wouldn’t even call his name) that speaks contemptuous blasphemies?” Mat 9:3. Or injurious language, claiming attributes of God? Just who does he think he is? they ranted in their evil minds, for their thoughts were not God’s thoughts, Isa 55:8-9. The Jews considered any claim to deity or the powers and attributes of God to be blasphemy, Mat 26:65; Joh 10:33; Joh 10:36.
3) “Who can forgive sins,” (tis dunatai hamartias apheina) “Who is able to forgive sins,” or to remit or release from sins, which He had done, Luk 5:20. Doubters, cavaliers find or invent some ground for rejection of or objection to the truth, Mar 2:7; Exo 34:7; Psa 103:3; Isa 1:18; Isa 43:25.
4) “But God alone?” (ei me monos ho theos) “Except God only?” True, but that is who “this one”, Jesus was, had they only recognized and received Him, Joh 1:11-12; Luk 7:48-49; Joh 9:31; Dan 9:9.
This is the first time that our Lord was accused of blasphemy during His ministry.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
‘And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, “Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?”
The Scribes would probably be mainly the local Scribes, doctors and teachers of the Law (depending on Luk 5:17), supported perhaps by one or two from Judaea and Jerusalem. The larger party from Jerusalem would come later. Being mainly local they were almost certainly Pharisees, with any other having been brought in by the locals. (Some Scribes were Sadducees). They were looked to by the people to interpret the Law and did so on the basis of oral tradition passed down among them, much of which was the result of scribal decisions in the past. There would appear to have been three types of such oral tradition: (a) some oral laws which were claimed as having come from Moses as having been given by the great lawgiver in addition to the written laws; (b) decisions made by various judges which had become precedents in judicial matters; and (c) interpretations of great teachers (Rabbis) which came to be prized with the same reverence as were the Old Testament Scriptures. In order to become Scribes they had to become learned in these oral traditions, which were called ‘the tradition of the Elders’. They looked on themselves, and were generally looked on by the people, as the guardians of the Law. They had almost certainly come to sound out this new teacher so as to make a judgment on Him.
‘Began to reason.’ They were weighing up His words and coming to their ‘considered’ judgment on them. They had not come to learn but to act as critics. Thus when they heard His words to the paralysed man their ears pricked up, and they probably whispered quietly among themselves. ‘How dare He speak like this? It is pure blasphemy. For surely only God can forgive sins.’ Had they listened more reasonably they might have recognised that He had not quite said what they thought. Like Nathan of old He had only assured the man of God’s forgiveness (2Sa 12:13). But they were not thinking sympathetically.
‘He speaks blasphemies.’ That is, He is taking over God’s prerogative and therefore acting against God. Indeed almost making Himself out to be the equal of God. Their words remind us how easy it is to be so set in our thoughts that we can only think in one way. They had not come to think fairly about what Jesus was saying, or what He was doing. They had come to measure it by their yardstick. And in that light there could be only one conclusion. And in fact by that yardstick even a Messiah coming in terms of their own expectations would have been a blasphemer. The theory of a Messiah was fine, but the actuality was not, and never would be, acceptable to them unless He handed over all religious aspects to them. A free thinking Messiah would not be allowable.
‘Who can forgive sins but God alone?’ They were, of course, correct. From the point of view of being forgiven in the sight of God (which was what Jesus had meant) it was only God Who could do it. But Jesus had actually spoken ambiguously. They could have seen it as meaning simply, ‘God has forgiven you’ as a word of comfort and assurance, but they saw it as meaning ‘I have bestowed on you God’s forgiveness’. In their view that went along with His outrageous religious attitude. But it was open to men either to see Him as a declarer of forgiveness (as with Nathan in 2Sa 12:13) or as One Who shared the prerogative of God. The Scribes, in fact, actually came to the right conclusion, that He could forgive sins, but made the wrong response. Because of their prejudice they were not willing to yield to the truth.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Luk 5:21 . : Lk. omits the qualifying phrases , of Mt. and Mk., leaving it doubtful whether they spoke out or merely thought . does not settle the point, as it merely indicates to what effect they reasoned.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
can forgive = is able to forgive.
God. App-98.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
scribes: Luk 5:17, Luk 7:49, Mar 2:6, Mar 2:7
blasphemies: Lev 24:16, 1Ki 21:10-14, Mat 9:3, Mat 26:65, Joh 10:33, Act 6:11-13
Who can: Exo 34:6, Exo 34:7, Psa 32:5, Psa 35:5, Psa 103:3, Psa 130:4, Isa 1:18, Isa 43:25, Isa 44:22, Dan 9:9, Dan 9:19, Mic 7:19, Rom 8:33
Reciprocal: Jer 13:22 – if Mat 9:6 – that the Mat 15:1 – which Mat 21:10 – Who Luk 5:30 – General Luk 7:47 – Her Heb 12:3 – contradiction
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1
This verse proves the statement made at verse 17 about the Pharisees.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Luk 5:21. Began to reason. The opposing thought arose at once, and it was soon answered.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
The religious leaders were correct. Only God can forgive sins. However, they were unwilling to draw the conclusion that Jesus was God.
"Whenever Luke reports what someone is thinking, instruction from Jesus usually follows." [Note: Idem, Luke, p. 158.]
"Luke, incidentally, is rather fond of questions which begin with ’Who?’ and refer to Jesus (Luk 7:49; Luk 8:25; Luk 9:9; Luk 9:18; Luk 9:20; Luk 19:3)." [Note: Morris, p. 117.]