Matthew 16:19 & John 20:23 and original greek

[alexaustralia]

I am reading the book “Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics” by Ron Rhodes (protestant literature). I would like some help with the statements he makes; written below.

Regarding Matthew 16:19

The Greek construction of the latter half of Mathew 16:19 makes this clear, for there we have two perfect passive participles in periphrastic construction. (The perfect tense indicates an action that was completed in the past but has continuing results.) The proper translation is, “Whatsoever you bind upon earth shall have already been bound in heaven, and whatsoever you loose upon the earth shall have already been loosed in heaven.”

and regarding John 20:23

This verse is translated more literally from the Greek: “Those whose sins you forgive have already been forgiven; those whose sins you do not forgive have not been forgiven.” The verse does not carry the idea that we have the power to forgive sins in ourselves, but that we are proclaiming what heaven has already proclaimed

Now I know priests act “persona Christi” so the accusation he makes is only half right/wrong because priests do not forgive sins “in themselves”. But is his use of the greek here and above adequate?

Also he makes the claim that in Acts 8:14 Peter is sent by the apostles showing that Peter did not have authority over fellow apostles otherwise it would be he doing the sending. Any comments on this one would also be appreciated.

Cheers,

Alex

 

[Vincent]

λελυμένον (lelumenon- loose) and ἀφέωνται (afientai- forgive) are both in the perfect tense, which express a past action with continuing effects.

 

[Randy_Carson]

From the original post:
“The Greek construction of the latter half of Mathew 16:19 makes this clear, for there we have two perfect passive participles in periphrastic construction. (The perfect tense indicates an action that was completed in the past but has continuing results.) The proper translation is, ‘Whatsoever you bind upon earth shall have already been bound in heaven, and whatsoever you loose upon the earth shall have already been loosed in heaven.’”

The author has illustrated perfectly where the Church’s position on papal infallibility comes from.

You see, in order for Jesus’ words to be true, one of two possibilites must exist. Either A) whatever Peter decides will later be ratified in heaven by God or B) whatever Peter declares will already be true in heaven.

In the case of A), God would be in a real bind if Peter declared something stupid. I don’t think God would want to be running around with a mop and bucket cleaning up after Peter.

In the case of B), Peter would only have to declare things that are already true in heaven. Now, that doesn’t sound so difficult, does it? If the books of the New Testament are inspired, “god-breathed” scripture, then the men who wrote them must have gotten their material from God himself.

To extend this to future teachings of the Church is no big deal to God, is it? After all, Jesus promised that he would be with us till the end of time and that the Holy Spirit would lead the Church into all truth.

Therefore, the Pope and the Magisterium of the Church can be prevented from teaching error in matters of faith and morals by simply sticking to what is revealed to them by God as truth already “loosed” or “bound” in heaven.

For us, this happens in the course of time, but God is outside of time, so what we learn (and here I would say “learn” means to declare formally since all revelation has been given already) in 1854 or 1950 or at some point in the future is already known by God.

I doubt the author intended to support the Catholic position on the infallibility of the Pope, but unless I am mistaken, this is about as good a treatment as you’ll ever hear from a non-Catholic.

Regarding the incident in Acts 8, the Apostles sent Peter and John? Wow! Talk about sending in the big guns! Seriously, this is a stretch. If the Apostles wanted to discuss the situation amongst themselves and then decide who to send, what is the big deal? As just indicated, it is more revealing that the group sent the big boys to see what was happening in Samaria.

By contrast, the Apostle Phillip got stuck with the task of dealing with an Ethiopian eunuch just 12 verses later!

 

[Axion]

8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

8:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the HolyGhost:

The argument here is abit thin if they are using that to imply that Peter was not leader of the Apostles. The Apostles were clearly debating and deciding as a group, deciding to send two leading figures on an important mission. The Apostles often met in Council to discuss and come to agreement on important matters, the most famous being the Council of Jerusalem. This does not mean that Peter was not leader of the Apostles as is made clear throughout Acts, when he is the pre-eminent speaker in most instances, and also makes decisions without the others like that on repealing the Jewish food laws.

 

[alexaustralia]

Thank you guys for your (name removed by moderator)ut.