Can someone answer this objection to the Catholic understanding of John 20:21-23?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Luke_K
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Slowlearner said:
I ask because that is a first point to make in answer to the argument set forth in the original post. In other words, in addition to points made above, you could say:

“As a preliminary matter, I must note an error in the argument of ____. He states, “Jesus used the Greek word ____.” This is not correct. Jesus spoke aramaic, not Greek as that was the language of Israel at the time. Of course we should carefully consider the Greek words chosen by the gospel author to translate and record Jesus’ teaching, but we should get this error cleared up at first.”

I my mind it affects the credibility of the person making the argument if they incorrectly state what language Jesus spoke. No good biblical scholar would make that error.
Click to expand...
But if you use this argument, you set yourself up for a sticky situation concerning another part of John, as I addressed in this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=591419
 
Jimmy Akin on The sacrament of reconciliation (jimmyakin.com/library/the-priesthood-debate)

a. John 20:21-23
The reference to the sacrament of holy anointing forgiving a person’s sins also leads us to another sacrament the priests of the Church administer. In John 20:21-23, Jesus tells his ministers, “Receive the Holy Spirit. . . . Whoever’s sins you for give, they are forgiven; whoever’s sins you retain, they are retained.”
b. My former evangelical interpretations
When I was a Protestant I tried to force this passage to mean something about the preaching of the gospel, or about proclaiming people forgiven after they already have been forgiven by God. But I realized that this put Jesus’ order backwards. He did not say, “If they are forgiven by God, then you forgive them.” He said, “If you forgive them then they are forgiven.” I finally had to admit that Jesus meant exactly what he said: When his ministers forgive or retain sins, those sins are forgiven or retained.
c. “But only God can forgive sins!”
“But only God can forgive sins!” Well, that was the cry of the Pharisees when they saw Jesus forgive a man. But if you read Matthew’s gospel, you find out that Jesus did not forgive the sins in his divine capacity as God. He stated that the “Son of man” has authority on earth to forgive sins. And in Matthew 9:8, the crowd glorified God because, as the gospel-writer himself tells us, God had given such authority to men.
So men are instruments God uses to channel his own forgiveness. Jesus meant exactly what he said. His ministers have the power to forgive and retain sins, and my Protestant church was simply out of synch with the Bible on this point. Again, it made void the word of God by its human tradition of pretending this sacrament does not exist. In doing so, it warped the spiritual development of countless individuals.

Source: catholic.com/magazine/articles/the-priesthood-is-both-ministerial-and-universal

Tim Staples writes:

In Scripture, we see our Lord definitively choosing and sending apostles to act as priests, or “mediators between God and men.” For example, after the Resurrection, our Lord appears to the apostles and says to them: “‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’” (Jn 20:21-23).
Here, Jesus communicated the power to forgive and retain sins—just as he himself had done—to the apostles. This is a priestly ministry (see also Lv 19:21-22).
Tense Matters
Some Protestant scholars attempt to evade the rather obvious meaning here by claiming the verbs, “are forgiven” and “are retained” indicate that when Jesus said, “If you forgive . . . they are forgiven,” he actually meant whoever’s sins they forgive would have already been forgiven. And even more, they would not have been forgiven through the ministry of the apostle, but by God apart from the apostle. Because “the first verbs in the two clauses are aorists, which imply the action of an instant; [and] the second verbs are perfects,” one scholar claims that these verbs “imply an abiding state that began before the action of the first verbs” (Merrill C. Tenney, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 9:193).
Dr. Tenney’s argument is weak. First, kratete, “you retain,” is present—not aorist—tense, indicating that the apostle’s authority to “retain” is ongoing. This fact alone reveals Tenney’s argument to be hollow. But his argument also does not sufficiently acknowledge that these two verbs, “you forgive” and “you retain,” in these protases (conditional clauses) are subjunctives contained within indefinite relative clauses. It is true the aorist subjunctive here with regard to whoever sins you forgive would indicate an instant action, but the subjunctive mood within an indefinite relative clause expresses uncertainty or potentiality with regard to the subject. While this is not a proper future tense, it does indicate the future in the sense of something that is possible. This would seem to indicate a conditional thought that must be fulfilled before the apodosis (concluding clause) “are forgiven” could be fulfilled. In short, before the definite event of these sins being forgiven can come about—indicated by the perfect tense—another merely possible event must occur; namely, the apostle must forgive those sins.
The text of John 20 is really quite plain. It tells us when the sins spoken of are forgiven: when the apostles forgive them. This is not to say the apostles accomplish this by their own power. Jesus “breathed on them” and gave them the power of the Holy Spirit to forgive sins. But the apostles are revealed to be the instruments of God’s forgiveness.
 
CONFESS MY SINS STRAIGHT TO GOD?

Confessing your sins “straight to God” has dangers to it. Here are just a few of them:

Danger 1: Define what is a sin based on personal opinion
Danger 2: Excuse yourself instead of accuse yourself
Danger 3: The “god” to whom you confess can be made in your image and likeness, not you made in His image and likeness.
Danger 4: Generalization: “Lord I am sorry for being selfish.”

Example of Danger 1: “I do not need to confess abortion, because to me it is a woman’s right to choose.” In this case the person has declared herself to be arbiter of what is right and wrong, an act of arrogance in the presence of God. She may not be forgiven at all, but rather condemned for the sin of pride.

Example of Danger 2: Mafia man says, “I only tortured those people because I was ordered to do so, therefore, for me, it was not a sin.” In this case the person has excused himself instead of accused himself. Rather than an act of humility, he has refused to admit guilt. He may be condemned for failing to repent.

Example of Danger 3: “The god that I imagine would never condemn people to hell; he is all merciful. Therefore there really is no need to confess sin at all!” In this case, the person has projected onto God an image of Him, not based on revelation, but rather based on his own imagination. He has made up a god in his image and likeness. Such a person may not find forgiveness before the tribunal of Christ.

Example of Danger 4: “Lord I am sorry for whatever I may have done to displease you.” This person fails to make any purpose of amendment or change to his life. By not identifying specific sins, he has rendered his repentance to an ethereal, non-concrete act of no significance, which is generally the problem of “confessing your sins straight to God.”

Confessing your sins to a priest is much more concrete and real and safer and set up by Jesus!

“When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained” (John 20:23).

Jesus wants us to confess our sins to a priest. Confessing your sins to a priest IS confessing your sins to God, for only God can forgive sins, the priest is just an instrument (cf. Commentary on John 20:23 by St. Thomas Aquinas dhspriory.org/thomas/John20.htm ).

The priest is like a broom that Jesus uses to sweep away all sin from your soul. Confessing your sins to a priest is like going to a spiritual doctor. Self-medicating always has inherent dangers!

Sometimes a commentator will get technical and appeal to the Greek while still just offering his own private erroneous interpretation, made no more valid simply because he mentions Greek words. He, in effect, will translate John 20:23, “You declare sins to be forgiven because they are already forgiven; you declare sins to be bound because they are already bound.” This translation is inaccurate and misinterprets Scripture according to mere human tradition which nullifies God’s Word.

It is stated that the Greek verb APHIEMI is first used in John 20:23 in the aorist active subjunctive tense and secondly in the perfect passive indicative tense. The conclusion is then offered: the sins were already forgiven in the past and are still forgiven! They fail to even mention the second part, which according to their logic, the sins were already bound in the past and are still bound! This double predestination effectively does away with free will. Also Jesus’ teaching us to pray, “Father forgive us our sins” is rendered void of meaning.

The problem with this analysis of the Greek is that it takes the text out of context which is the indefinite relative clause (starting with ἄν) which expresses a conditional thought (protasis) that must be fulfilled before the concluding clause (apodosis) “are forgiven” or “are retained” can be fulfilled.

“In short, the apostles are essential in the text because the forgiveness is contingent upon them doing the forgiving. Before the future event of these sins being forgiven occurs, another future event must occur; namely, the apostles must forgive those sins.” (cf. Tim Staples, "Why We Have a Ministerial Priesthood catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6475 ).

When the Church says the apostles, bishops and priests “do the forgiving” it simply means that they are instruments of God who alone can forgive sins.

The Bible really is Catholic! What good is the infallible Word of God, without an authority to infallibly interpret it? Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) and private interpretation have led to constant divisions, condemnation of those who do not agree with your interpretation.

Stick with the Catholic Church which has offered a definitive worldwide public interpretation of the infallible Word of God for 2000 years, in a way which is not only free from error, but continually grows richer and deeper in the Spirit led development of doctrine! God is awesome! Praised be Jesus Christ!

Scott Hahn on Confession
youtube.com/watch?v=fZ0D-BLWY70
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top