Did Jesus give his power and authority to the apostles to forgive sins?
ESSENTIALS
John 20:23 has Jesus giving the Holy Spirit to the disciples and telling them
that if they forgive the sins of any they are forgiven and if they retain the
sins they are retained.
"They are forgiven". But by who? It is not clear on who is
active.
The text gives no hint that this authority was to be passed on.
Jesus meant: "Right now whoever sins etc." It was a pure once-off done because
the disciples were being prepared to set up the Church. That interpretation
explains why there is no record of anybody forgiving sins in the early Church.
Evidence that it was a once off comes from the "if you forgive the sins of ANY".
Any must mean literally anybody. Catholicism does not forgive the sins of any.
There are conditions. For example you have to be baptised and a Catholic.
It does not say it is necessary to get forgiven through a disciple. If Jesus
said you could that does not mean he felt you could not go to God directly
instead.
Christians forgive sins against themselves. Sin against God is another matter.
The text is saying that if the disciples forgive those who sin against them that
God will forgive too. They have no power to forgive in God's name but forgive
WITH God. The text distinguishes between the disciples forgiving and God doing
it. Jesus did not say, "Receive the Holy Spirit. Those whose sins you forgive
against God will be forgiven by God."
Some say he is only telling the disciples that if anybody hurts them they must
sort it out and when they forgive them God will forgive them also. They think he
is only referring to how forgiveness is personal and a process and can only
happen between offender and offended. They note he does not tell them to forgive
as if they were God. They feel the promise applies to all Christians. They deny
the verse means anything like a Catholic going to confess sins to a stranger in
the confessional to get forgiven. They say the verse excludes that nonsense.
The verse does not say that it means they can forgive sins as if they were the
ones the sins were against. It makes sense to say that Jesus meant nothing more
that if the disciples forgive then God will forgive AS WELL. There are two
forgivings not one. The apostles make their decision to forgive and God makes
his to forgive along with them. The text does not say that Jesus gave them the
power to forgive sins against God. It is against commonsense to imagine that
John can forgive you for Eddie when it was Eddie you hurt. The Bible assumes we
have the power to think.
“If you forgive the sins of any”. The if means, on the condition that. If John
had meant absolution in the Catholic sense he would have been careful to prevent
people thinking that the only way to forgiveness after that was by absolution.
He was not so he did not mean the Catholic understanding for even Catholics do
not go that far. If Jesus gave the power to forgive sins it was a gift and
optional. It could be as good to confess to God alone if you want to as it is to
confess to an apostle.
ABSOLVE NOT FORGIVE
Roman priests say, "I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, the
Son and the Holy Spirit." The Church teaches that to say, "I forgive you your
sins in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" is illicit. This is
not just because it is changing the words. It is because absolving and forgiving
are not exactly the same thing. Absolving does not necessarily forgive. It only
declares that a person is hopefully freed from their sins. Whether they are or
not depends on whether or not they are repentant for the right reasons.
Forgiving does necessarily forgive. The Church says that only God can forgive.
Yet it still says priests forgive sins.
Only one place in the Bible seems to unambiguously agree with Catholicism that
priests can remit sins, John 20:23, where the risen Jesus tells the disciples,
“Receive the Holy Spirit! [Now having received the Holy Spirit, and being led
and directed by him] if you forgive the sins of anyone, they are forgiven; if
you retain the sins of anyone, they are retained.” AMPLIFIED BIBLE.
But the doctrine that absolving and forgiving are not the same implies that
here, Jesus is not giving the power to absolve at all. Thus the verse does not
support Roman Catholic teaching. The only way the apostles could forgive sins is
if they did more than just absolve but actually saw the person was ripe for
forgiveness and forgive on that basis. It presupposes a supernatural knowledge
of the penitent. Roman Priests do not have such powers of knowledge.
John 20:23, where the risen Jesus tells the disciples, “Receive the Holy Spirit!
[Now having received the Holy Spirit, and being led and directed by him] if you
forgive the sins of anyone, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of anyone,
they are retained.” Compare John 20:23 with John 15:7 and Matthew 18:19,20.
There Jesus promise that whatever is prayed for in his name will be done and
advises you to ask for whatever you will. This can be taken to be promising that
you will get everything you ask for in prayer. But Jesus used language that
seemed to say that but he certainly did not mean that. Jesus promised the
disciples in Matthew 18 that whatever they tied up on earth would be tied up in
Heaven and whatever they released on earth would be released in Heaven and then
immediately after said that they would get whatever they pray for. He meant that
whatever they tried to restrict or open up through prayer would be done. This is
the context. When you think of all this and the parallels you see that John
20:23 is not the great text that proves Catholic doctrine that it seems to be.
The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus forgave sins by saying, "Your sins are
forgiven." See Matthew 9. The Church says the gospel says Jesus forgave sins by
saying that. But notice Jesus does not say, "I forgive sins" but "I declare your
sins have been forgiven." "If you forgive" does not mean you are
deciding to forgive. Look at how in the gospel Jesus forgives a woman
except he doesn't. He tells her, “Your sins are
forgiven.” That is not the same as saying I decide your sins are now
forgiven. Then we read, The other
guests began to say among themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?”
So for the New Testament, "I forgive you your sins" is just a way of saying God
has forgiven them. It is not the same as an absolution.
Jesus is not saying he actually forgives sins as if he were God - he only
says he realises God has forgiven the person and is assuring the person of that.
In early Christian custom, forgiving sins means declaring that God has forgiven.
It does not mean absolution. So "If you forgive the sins of any" does not
support Roman teaching. Priests forgiving sins is totally unbiblical. The burden
of proof is on the Roman priesthood to prove it can forgive sins. It cannot. Or
if you prefer to say the burden of support is on the Roman priesthood to support
the belief and make belief in their power justified it makes no difference. The
Catholic priesthood makes a very very serious claim that it can't justify. Thus
in going to priests for forgiveness one is going to men not God.
IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST?
The John verse says nothing about the Catholic practice of priests forgiving
sins against God as if the penitent did wrong against them and they were God.
There is no room for the idea that priests can forgive as if they were the God
that was offended by the sinner. The Catholic Church pretends it doesn't know
this. But it does. The Church believes that if a priest doesn't forgive sins it
is foolish to say he is retaining sin, keeping the sinner in sin. The sinner
keeps himself in sin. All Jesus is saying that the Church forgives and doesn't
forgive on earth depending on whether or not the person has been forgiven or not
forgiven in the sight of Heaven.
Jesus had to have meant: “If you cause God to forgive sins etc”, for you can’t
mean, “You can forgive sins in God’s place as if you are God,” any more than you
can say, “John loving his daughter is precisely the same as his wife loving her”
for they are two different people and John can’t love for her. Jesus was talking
about the apostles who forgivingly welcomed the sinner and prayed God to forgive
the sinner that God would really forgive. That is not the same as Romanist
absolution.
The Catholic Church does not teach that its priests just give God’s forgiveness
in confession. It does more than that. It claims they forgive in the person of
God for Christ said, “If you forgive the sins of any” and the Church says, “I
absolve”. That is why its claim to the Protestants that when they believe that
baptism in water takes away sin they should not disparage the Catholic sacrament
of absolution for there is no significant difference is trickery. Many
Protestants teach that God forgives sin in baptism not the minister. The
minister is not forgiving sins but only giving a rite in which God has agreed to
administer forgiveness. Catholicism teaches that the priest forgives sin in the
sacrament of absolution, it means that he is making a decision for God as if he
were God. It is different. Its appeal to baptism is a plot to prevent
Protestants from seeing how horrific and blasphemous the Catholic teaching is.
The difference is plainly that in baptism God forgives sin directly himself
which is the only way sins can be forgiven for if you are not God you cannot
forgive sin directly for him. But in absolution it is the priest that forgives
directly.
God is a personal being with free will. He is not if a priest can control God's
forgiving power and make him forgive when he says. God cannot consent to such
treatment for it is him ceasing to be God and a free person. The Catholic
doctrine is totally blasphemous. Only one gospel seems to teach the blasphemy
and if it does the gospel should be eliminated from the New Testament as a fake
scripture of human and not divine origin. The rule of scripture is that at least
two independent firsthand witnesses are necessary and with such an important and
possibly dangerous and immoral doctrine you would need more than one gospel
testimony.
SYMBOLIC?
The text is symbolic for Jesus' teaching on forgiveness forbids any deliberate
attempt to retain sins or keep people in them. Not forgiving sins is not the
same as acting to keep a person in their sins. Retaining is the converse of
forgiveness. It is an act. Letting a person stay in their sins is merely
respecting the person's will for the person cannot be forced. Retaining is
forcing the person to stay in sins. Some prefer the view that the text is
inaccurate which means you cannot build a system like the Catholic system of
forgiving sins on it.
If Jesus said, “Make a square circle”, you would not take him literally and you
would know he did not mean it literally. Making a square circle is as impossible
as forgiving sins against God as if you were God when you are not. So because a
priest cannot give God’s forgiveness but only lets himself be part of the
circumstances in confession when God resolves to forgive sins and that is the
nearest one can get to forgiving sins it follows that Jesus must have meant to
allow God to forgive. If he meant Catholic type sacramental absolution, he did
not mean the priest would directly forgive for only God can do that for the
forgiveness is God’s. So it was indirect.
If it is indirect, then if you cause God to forgive sins you can cause this
without performing absolution. So what Jesus said could mean what the
Protestants say it meant: “Forgive sins by preaching repentance by the power of
the Spirit for all who repent by the grace of God will be pardoned” for that is
indirect pardon.
DISCIPLINARY FORGIVENESS?
In the Greek originals of John the words translated pardoned and unforgiven are
in the perfect tense who means an act completed in the past whose effects still
exist. Literally Jesus said, “Those who sins you forgive have been forgiven”
(page 12, Roman Catholicism What is Final Authority?). He is telling them that
they will forgive whoever God has forgiven and not to forgive sins in the
Catholic understanding. The Catholic idea is just too absurd, a person forgiving
sins as if he were God, to have been meant.
This interpretation fits the view that the verse is really just about not giving
God’s forgiveness but Church forgiveness or disciplinary forgiveness. It could
still mean that even if it said if you forgive the sins of any they are
forgiven. The fact that when somebody sinned, because the early Church couldn’t
see if they had sincerely turned to God for mercy and received it or not, the
person was not considered a proper member of the Church but left out of many
things and compelled to do penance until the bishop reconciled them to the
Church at the end of their probation. Jesus in Matthew 18:17 commanded that the
Church must not forgive or have any friendly relations with unrepentant sinners.
So if John 20:23 means disciplinary forgiveness, then Jesus was authorising the
practice. He is saying he will sanction the decision the Church makes on earth.
He is not saying it will necessarily make the right decisions all the time but
he recognises the need for his Church to make some decisions based on its own
judgement and in accordance with the principles he gave. He is saying then, “If
you forgive the sins of any in this disciplinary way I forgive them that way
too. If you retain their sins I retain them too.” This makes more sense than
saying he meant he could enable them to forgive sins as if they were God for
only God can pardon sins.
Moreover, the Bible occasionally speaks of declaring an act like it was
performing it (Jeremiah 1:10; Isaiah 6:10). The John text could have been using
this peculiar method of expression. It may just mean that to successfully
declare pardon is to forgive.
God could forgive you terms of church discipline but not as a friend. A judge
may forgive you personally but still have to punish you through the law.
GROUP ABSOLUTION?
In the original Greek, the Bible says that if the apostles forgive the sins of
any and any being plural they are forgiven (Ordination, Rev Willie Bridcut,
Irish Church Missions). Jesus had no reason to use the plural. The single would
do. Unless the plural would imply that if a group of people were forgiven they
are forgiven. The plural does not necessarily imply that the single will be
forgiven for the apostles were busy men. And busy men like them have the job of
reconciling break-offs from the Church to the Church and deal with groups. So
the forgiveness was only meant for schismatic or sinful factions in the Church
not for individuals. The verse then does not support Catholic style secret
confession or individual absolution. It forbids them.
USELESS
In Catholicism, it is a man forgiving sin so to use Catholic style forgiveness
is to live without the forgiveness of God. If you commit a crime and seek a
pardon from the king a pardon from your next door neighbour will be ineffective.
Roman Catholicism then by having men forgiving sins instead of God is anti-God
and anti-Christ. It is pure bigotry to base all that absolving on one Bible
verse and especially one that is so ambivalent. This cult is being
irresponsible. The Catholic who thinks he or she is getting forgiveness from God
in confession is wrong and misunderstands the doctrine for it comes from the
priest. The priest forgives for God and makes God’s decision like God can’t make
his own.
The Catholic interpretation of John that it authorises priests to decide who
should be forgiven by God is unlawful for there is no need to go that far. We
must take the simplest interpretation which is that the author did not have the
Catholic doctrine in mind.
Catholics are used to the idea of priests forgiving sins. But it is wholly
ridiculous. They read their ridiculous notion back into the texts. It is not
there. The use of the text by popes and priests is quite manipulative.
"YOU ARE GODS"
Jesus in the gospel of John when accused of claiming to be God responds that the Bible calls its Jewish hearers gods.
If we become God or equal to God we can forgive sins. Is that what John’s gospel meant if it says men can forgive sins? Does the Catholic Church secretly think it does?
CONCLUSION
Let Loraine Boettner give us the conclusion, "Does this mean that the church can forgive sins? The difficulty with this conclusion is that the church is not mentioned here in John 20:22-23. We see in John 20:19-20 that this is a secret meeting of the risen Jesus and His disciples save Thomas. Therefore, the disciples are the ones receiving this benefit, not the church. This benefit is seen clearly in the acts of Peter concerning Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1-11, when Peter condemned them to death by the witness of the Holy Spirit. The Apostles were given a measure of the Spirit not seen today; therefore, to say that any individual or even the collective church can hold the same powers as the Apostles did would be in direct contradiction with 1 Corinthians 13:8-10.
The charge in John 20:22-23, however, is also much like the ones given to these disciples concerning binding and loosing in Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:18; it may be observed that the Apostles, and the church after them, had the ability through the preaching of the Gospel to lead men to salvation or to have them condemned in their unbelief. The actions taken by the Apostles (and also by the church) were done in accordance with the will of and by the agency of God, not by any declaration they made on their own. Thus, it is inaccurate to say that the church has the power to remit sins based on the Apostles’ ability to do so. Just as we have seen that no one has the authority to claim the Apostles’ ability to bind and loose, no one can claim their ability to loose or retain sin."