John 20:23 (Again and again)

[elvisman]

My Bible gives the following explanation for John 20:23 - IF YOU FORGIVE - The apostles did not take Jesus’ words to mean that they had the power to forgive sins. They knew that only God could forgive sins. Neither the apostles nor the church had the power to forgive specific sins or to prevent forgivness of any individual. Fundamentally Jesus was speaking of the responsibility of the church to declare the gospel to all the world, so that those who believe in Jesus can find the precious gift of forgiveness.

Where do you get THAT? That IS a stretch!
No - the Reformation and the rejection of Authority is what cause the many bad interpretations of Scripture to come to light.
Only TWICE (2 times) in ALL of Scripture does GOD breathe on or into man. He breathed life into Adam and here:

---

John 20:21-23
**(Jesus) said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." ***And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. *****Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” ****** **You CAN’T see the significance of this? **I’m not picking on you personally, Pigtown. I just cannot justify the arrogance of Protestantism that would reject the teachings of the Church Fathers by claiming “we know better”.

 

[Mannyfit75]

This is an interesting discussion, however shouldn’t this be in the Apologetics Sacred Scripture Thread?

 

[Curious]

This is an interesting discussion, however shouldn’t this be in the Apologetics Sacred Scripture Thread?

you might be right manny. i thought to put it here because i put some protestant quotes in the original post and am looking for a “satisfactory” prot explanation.

 

[Mannyfit75]

you might be right manny. i thought to put it here because i put some protestant quotes in the original post and am looking for a “satisfactory” prot explanation.

Why aren’t you satified with the Protestant interpretation of John 20:23?

 

[anthony022071]

JOHN 20:23
If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.

This verse drives me insane. I tried to look some things up, trying to find a decent Protestant explanation of this verse. It probably deserves much more serious research than the brief looking around that I did, but I did what I could for right now.

*From the little commentary in my Bible: *The disciples are to preach both the way of salvation and the way of damnation explaining how sinners can be forgiven and the danger of rejecting the gospel. Whether or not the hearers’ sins are forgiven depends on their acceptance or rejection of Christ.

Oh my. Isn’t that stretching it a bit?

The second and third will be a copy/paste from a website.

Source:
protestant-truth.org/protestantism/absolution.html

I was at another website that looked okay for a minute, but I was so put off by the term “Romish” that I just quit there. I’m not in a great mood right now anyway.

And from the quote I quoted above, those interpretations are stretches too.

No, they may not be paraphrased that way because that’s not even paraphrasing. That’s utterly, unabashedly adding stuff. Isn’t it? I mean, isn’t that just a stretch? Is it something that’s been interpreted “in light of other scriptures?”

I have asked around, just a few fellow Bible thumpers. Most of them give me a variation of the stuff I’ve quoted above.

Either there is no satisfactory Protestant explanation for this verse or I am not looking hard enough.

:banghead:

Though the disciples could retain the sins of the heathen by not forgiving them,that does not mean that the disciples were sentencing them to damnation. That is for Jesus Christ to decide.

 

[Yerusalyim]

The earliest Christians, who were indoctrinated by the apostles themselves, confessed their sins privately to the presbyters and the presbyters pronounced God’s forgiveness, not on their own authority, but “in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” just as the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox churches do today and have done since the day of Pentecost, 33 A.D.

In fairness to accuracy I don’t think this is necessarily true…I’d like to see some type of quote from one of the early Church Fathers…my understanding is that initially absolution was reserved to the Bishop…after a lenghty and public penance…and that at times as the sacrament developed…even lay people heard confessions…

In it’s current form (as I understand it) Irish monks (some lay monks and some ordained) would hear one another’s confessions, offer counsel…and absolution…and that his is where the practice of both private confession and private penance was developed.

That doesn’t impugn upon the sacrament at all…the sacrament has always been there…the context of how it was exercised has changed.

 

[HailMary]

you might be right manny. i thought to put it here because i put some protestant quotes in the original post and am looking for a “satisfactory” prot explanation.

I’ve been asking for a “satisfactory” non-Catholic Protestant meaning to this passage for about 2 years now and I haven’t heard any…probably because an honest reading will lend to Sacrament Confession.

 

[Romulus]

Why aren’t you satified with the Protestant interpretation of John 20:23?

He may be being led by the SPIRIT…

 

[Curious]

Why aren’t you satified with the Protestant interpretation of John 20:23?

Because you have to streeeeetch and add things to the verse to make it say what Protestants want it to say.

Though the disciples could retain the sins of the heathen by not forgiving them,that does not mean that the disciples were sentencing them to damnation. That is for Jesus Christ to decide.

In what instance did the disciples “retain” sin? What does that even mean?

He may be being led by the SPIRIT…

She, not he.

 

[Randy_Carson]

My Bible gives the following explanation for John 20:23 - IF YOU FORGIVE - The apostles did not take Jesus’ words to mean that they had the power to forgive sins. They knew that only God could forgive sins. Neither the apostles nor the church had the power to forgive specific sins or to prevent forgivness of any individual. Fundamentally Jesus was speaking of the responsibility of the church to declare the gospel to all the world, so that those who believe in Jesus can find the precious gift of forgiveness.

Is that what the early Church taught?

What did Ignatius - a disciple of the Apostle John - learn at the feet of the Gospel writer?

Let’s take a look at what he and other Early Church Fathers had to say.

Early Church Fathers on Confession of Sins

The Didache

“Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure” (Didache 4:14, 14:1 [A.D. 70]).

The Letter of Barnabas

“You shall judge righteously. You shall not make a schism, but you shall pacify those that contend by bringing them together. You shall confess your sins. You shall not go to prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of light” (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74]).

Ignatius of Antioch

“For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of penance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ” (Letter to the Philadelphians 3 [A.D. 110]).

“For where there is division and wrath, God does not dwell. To all them that repent, the Lord grants forgiveness, if they turn in penitence to the unity of God, and to communion with the bishop” (ibid., 8).

Irenaeus

“[The Gnostic disciples of Marcus] have deluded many women. . . . Their consciences have been branded as with a hot iron. Some of these women make a public confession, but others are ashamed to do this, and in silence, as if withdrawing from themselves the hope of the life of God, they either apostatize entirely or hesitate between the two courses” (Against Heresies 1:22 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian

“[Regarding confession, some] flee from this work as being an exposure of themselves, or they put it off from day to day. I presume they are more mindful of modesty than of salvation, like those who contract a disease in the more shameful parts of the body and shun making themselves known to the physicians; and thus they perish along with their own bashfulness” (Repentance 10:1 [A.D. 203]).

Hippolytus

“[The bishop conducting the ordination of the new bishop shall pray:] God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . Pour forth now that power which comes from you, from your royal Spirit, which you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, and which he bestowed upon his holy apostles . . . and grant this your servant, whom you have chosen for the episcopate, [the power] to feed your holy flock and to serve without blame as your high priest, ministering night and day to propitiate unceasingly before your face and to offer to you the gifts of your holy Church, and by the Spirit of the high priesthood to have the authority to forgive sins, in accord with your command” (Apostolic Tradition 3 [A.D. 215]).

Origen

“[A final method of forgiveness], albeit hard and laborious [is] the remission of sins through penance, when the sinner . . . does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from seeking medicine, after the manner of him who say, ‘I said, “To the Lord I will accuse myself of my iniquity”’” (Homilies on Leviticus 2:4 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

“The apostle [Paul] likewise bears witness and says: ‘ . . . Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. But [the impenitent] spurn and despise all these warnings; before their sins are expiated, before they have made a confession of their crime, before their conscience has been purged in the ceremony and at the hand of the priest . . . they do violence to [the Lord’s] body and blood, and with their hands and mouth they sin against the Lord more than when they denied him” (The Lapsed 15:1–3 (A.D. 251]).

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Romulus]

Because you have to streeeeetch and add things to the verse to make it say what Protestants want it to say.

In what instance did the disciples “retain” sin? What does that even mean?

She, not he.

Oh I apologize Curious. You know…I guess they aren’t many Protestants here in this forum to explain their views in regards to this particular scripture. We may have to join a Protestant forum to get all kinds of views. Views which I suspect are all “streeched” …but we shall see.

 

[SyCarl]

To me it means what it says. The Apostles were given the power to forgive sins as Jesus himself did. That doesn’t mean that the authority could be passed on to others. It also did not require the Apostles to hear confessions before they forgave.

 

[MariaG]

Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament

Whosesoever sins ye forgive (an tinwn aphte taߠamartia߼/B>). “If the sins of any ye forgive” (aphte, second aorist active subjunctive with an in the sense of ean), a condition of the third class. Precisely so with “retain” (krathte, present active subjunctive of kratew). They are forgiven (apewntai). Perfect passive indicative of apihmi, Doric perfect for apeintai. Are retained (kekrathntai). Perfect passive indicative of kratew. The power to forgive sin belongs only to God, but Jesus claimed to have this power and right (Mark 2:5-7). What he commits to the disciples and to us is the power and privilege of giving assurance of the forgiveness of sins by God by correctly announcing the terms of forgiveness. There is no proof that he actually transferred to the apostles or their successors the power in and of themselves to forgive sins. In Matthew 16:19; Matthew 18:18 we have a similar use of the rabbinical metaphor of binding and loosing by proclaiming and teaching. Jesus put into the hands of Peter and of all believers the keys of the Kingdom which we should use to open the door for those who wish to enter. This glorious promise applies to all believers who will tell the story of Christ’s love for men.

bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/RobertsonsWordPictures/rwp.cgi?book=joh&chapter=020&verse=023&next=024&prev=022

I posted this answer since it is the only one that is even vaguely different, although, in my opinion, the explanation provided by Daniel is just another fancy way of interpreting those passages as meaning go and preach forgiveness. (No offense meant Daniel )

My Bible says something very similar, but I just can’t accept that. It’s a stretch. It is NOT what the verse says. It’s what I’ve always been taught but it doesn’t make sense. If you want to make it say that, you have to add a bunch of things to the verse.

:nope:

Hi Curious,

I have to tell you, these verses were one of the final verses that God gave to me, to assure me I was doing the right thing, going back to the Catholic Church.

I love John 20:21-23

It saddens me that people who take scripture so literally(the crowd that I came from) that they have to believe in a young earth or their faith is shaken, do not consistently apply this literalness to all of scripture.

The earth is only 6 thousand years old but Jesus meant go and preach forgiveness, not go and forgive:shrug:

Doesn’t make any sense.

But I will keep reading for I have never heard any explanation except it meaning basically, go and preach forgiveness. And I agree with you, that interpretation has to stretch scripture so far that one should be worried that one is not doing so to one’s own destruction.

The question you need to start asking yourself is what are you going to do about this, when no other Protestant explanation to these verses presents itself?

Frankly, to be fair, you should post this question over at a couple of different Protestant boards, not just here. But I am fairly sure all the explanations will just be variations, like the one Daniel presented, of go and preach forgiveness at the base of it.

And then what are you going to do with the lack of a satisfactory explanation?

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[HailMary]

It also did not require the Apostles to hear confessions before they forgave.

Mind telling myself and the rest of the world how they would know what sins to forgive or retain if they were not known public (aka: confession)?

 

[SyCarl]

Mind telling myself and the rest of the world how they would know what sins to forgive or retain if they were not known public (aka: confession)?

Well considering that everyone is a sinner, it was not necessary for them to ask about sins. Note that Jesus didn’t give an example to the Apostles that they needed to know the sins first. He just forgave them.

 

[HailMary]

Well considering that everyone is a sinner, it was not necessary for them to ask about sins. Note that Jesus didn’t give an example to the Apostles that they needed to know the sins first. He just forgave them.

So what is the point of Jesus’ statement in John 20:22-23?

Why did he say that and mis-lead 2000 years of Christians, even your own Martin Luther, the founder of your protestant faith.

 

[SyCarl]

He said it to tell them that they had the authority. Jesus didn’t mislead anyone. He told the Apostles that they had the authority and they did. He didn’t say anything about successors.

As for Martin Luther, nobody says that everything he said or did was right. It is Catholics who assert infallible teaching authority not Protestants.

 

[NotWorthy]

To me it means what it says. The Apostles were given the power to forgive sins as Jesus himself did. That doesn’t mean that the authority could be passed on to others. It also did not require the Apostles to hear confessions before they forgave.

Do we have to go through everything Jesus said to the Apostles then and determine which powers were given to the Apostles and which were given to the Church?!?!? Paul showed how the Apostles passed on the authority of the Church. By the laying on of hands.

In regards to Forgiveness, either the Apostles would have to hear their confessions, or they would have to be psychic. I looked. It’s not in there.

 

[Romulus]

He said it to tell them that they had the authority. Jesus didn’t mislead anyone. He told the Apostles that they had the authority and they did. He didn’t say anything about successors.

As for Martin Luther, nobody says that everything he said or did was right. It is Catholics who assert infallible teaching authority not Protestants.

Of course Jesus didn’t mislead anyone…he is the TRUTH. I also don’t recall him saying anything about apostolic successors, but he did establish a church who has a vicarious shepard which has the authority to bind and loose…I’m sure you know where this is in the gospels. Randy Carson listed scriptural evidence of successorship in Acts of the Apostles…and in successorship, it includes this authority…so you may want to go up on this thread. And yes part of the Catholic faith is that the church is guided in a supernatural way by the SPIRIT which makes it indefectable in the Truth. Now, yes there are sinners in the church…but it is still the Pillar of Truth and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Here is another thing to keep in mind…not everything that Jesus did was written…read the last part of the Gospel of John…all these other things, some of them could have been revealed to us in Sacred Tradition, which comes from the same divine well as Sacred Scripture…Traditions that come from the Pillar of Truth…The Catholic Church.

Now back to our regularly scheduled “John 20:23 (Again and again)” thread

peace be with you

 

[Curious]

That doesn’t mean that the authority could be passed on to others. It also did not require the Apostles to hear confessions before they forgave.

Why would Jesus give that authority to his disciples if He did not intend for it to be passed down?

Frankly, to be fair, you should post this question over at a couple of different Protestant boards, not just here. But I am fairly sure all the explanations will just be variations, like the one Daniel presented, of go and preach forgiveness at the base of it.

You’re probably right. I wish I could just post everything here, as I know there are some knowledgable and eloquent Protestant posters here, but I guess I ought to go see what the full scope of Protestantism has to say. I’m to a point where I’d love to confer with some other Protestants about several things. From what I’ve heard from posters here, a lot of protestant forums will ban anyone that remotely sounds catholic, but I guess I’ll just see for myself.

heh…maybe this isn’t a good place to ask, but are there any prot forums anyone would recommend for such a discussion?

And then what are you going to do with the lack of a satisfactory explanation?

:banghead:

This bangy head smiley is becoming one of my favorites.
I honestly don’t know. **** and moan and whine? Bang my head against the wall in real life?