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

In the New Testament world, the relationship between God, Jesus, and the believer is often illuminated by the cultural concept of a reciprocal, or client-patron, relationship. God the Father is the patron; the believer is the client; Jesus is the Mediator (analogous to a cultural broker) -- who serves as the bridge between the two, acting upon the divine authority He shares with the Father. (In the Old Testament, God would be the suzerain, Moses the mediator, and Israel the vassals; this mirrors the New Testament relationship as well.)

In both instances, Jesus operates as the unique Mediator of God's forgiveness, revealing two aspects of His salvific work: Luke 23:34 is the Mediator's intercession to the Father on humanity's behalf -- an example of Jesus exercising His high priestly role. Luke 5:24 represents the Mediator exercising His divine authority on earth to declare forgiveness directly to the client.

First-century Jews understood such reciprocal relationships perfectly. YHWH (suzerain/patron), Moses (mediator of the covenant), Israel (clients).

Most importantly, the personnel of worship are clearly defined: the Father bestows benefaction on His clients by means of Jesus, the Mediator. Jesus, in turn, intercedes for the concerns of the clients to the Father.

A skeptical objection asks, "Couldn't God have really impressed everyone by providing predictions about the Nazis, or space travel? Couldn't Jesus have impressed His audience by comparing the mustard tree to the redwoods?"

Such predictions to the ancients would have been a distraction from the Gospel, and without the proper context, could have been a reason not to understand or believe it.

The Bible uses equivocal language that serves as a divine accommodation to human finitude without being an accommodation to human error.

Concerning ancient conceptions of how various bodily organs were the "center" of various aspects of our personality: The heart as the seat of emotions and thought was a prominent idea, though some began to contest this view in Greece by the 300s BC in preference for the brain. However, "heart preference" maintained its prominence among most people.

What difference does it make that no specific data is given in the Bible as to where the "seat of the mind is located"? The Bible emphasizes how the heart "deviseth a man's way," "inspires speech," "believes," "is joyful," "is deceitful," "is good" (Prov. 16:9; Mt. 12:34; Rom. 10:10; 1 Chron. 16:10; Jer. 17:9; Lk. 6:45). Besides the heart, the Bible also focuses (to a lesser extent) on the emotional and moral significance of the bowels and kidneys.

Even today, in spite of knowing better, we speak of "believing in our heart." Does one object to people when they say this, too?

There is no statement that, for example, "one kidney prompts man to do good, the other to do evil." We have expressions, but not designations. One can only find error by reading into the words presented a host of beliefs and issues not expressed in the text. God is no more in error than we are when we speak of "believing in one's heart" idiomatically.

Regarding the Biblical statement that "the life is in the blood..." The Hebrew word for "life" is nephesh and carries the meaning of breath or vitality. Technically the "breath" is in the blood since that is where oxygen is carried to the rest of the body.