John 20:22b - 23
“…‘Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.’”
– English KJV
“λάβετε Πνεῦμα ῞Αγιον· ἄν τινων ἀφῆτε τὰς ἁμαρτίας, ἀφίενται αὐτοῖς· ἄν τινων κρατῆτε, κεκράτηνται..”
– Greek Text
“lambete pneuma hagiov: an tis aphete tas hamartias, aphientai autois; an tis kratēte kekratēntai”
– Greek Pronunciation
Here we find one of the most debated verses in the entire Bible. The different interpretations of this verse are one of the primary reasons for the greatest split within the ‘Christian’ Church.
There are two mainstream interpretations of this verse and we will be looking at both of them. The difficulty in correctly interpreting this verse lies in the fact that one must keep it in context while not contradicting other parts of the Bible. Unfortunately this verse is often interpreted with bad eisegesis, instead of using proper exegesis.
View 1: The Catholic Interpretation
The Roman Catholic Church uses this verse as evidence to support their doctrine of confession (also known as the Sacrament of Reconciliation or Penance). They believe that men must confess their sins to the priest, who then forgives their sin (although, they explain that it is not the man, but the inspiration of God behind the man that forgives the sin). If the priest chooses to forgive the person, then that person is forgiven.
I do not agree with this interpretation.
Firstly, the Bible is clear that only God can forgive sin. There is no authority above God. Therefore man cannot tell God who He must forgive and who not.
Secondly, confession is not the requirement for forgiveness…repentance is. Anyone can confess and tell someone what they have done; they can even tell them that they are sorry and that they will change, but God alone knows whether that person is honest in his repentance. How can a priest, who (1) cannot see the confessor’s face (therefore he cannot see emotional expressions for indication of honesty), and (2) only listened to the confessor’s story for five minutes possible have any indication of how honest this man’s ‘repentance’ really is?
If the man truly repented then his actions over the next few weeks and years will be the proof thereof, not a confession of a few minutes in a small room!
View 2: A Protestant Alternative
The dominant view amongst the Protestants is that the Catholics misinterpret this verse. They indicate that it contradicts the Bible where God alone can forgive sin. The general interpretation is that Jesus meant for the church to proclaim the Gospel around the world. Those who they tell have the opportunity to receive forgiveness and those they skip over will not be forgiven.
This is basically the mainstream view amongst non-catholic denominations. (I understand that I what I am about to say may cause some flak to be shot in my direction…) However, I do not agree with this view either. Now, before you press the delete button and stone me, just hear me out and I will explain.
Firstly, I would never enter a debate with a Catholic using this argument. I think it is an extremely weak argument and that this interpretation would be considered nothing more than a desperate attempt to avoid the literal implication of the text so as to preserve my predetermined theology. (That would be eisegesis!)
Secondly, if we look at the grammar and context used in this sentence we see that retaining someone’s sin (not forgiving them) is acceptable. According to view number 2 this means that it is acceptable not to preach the Gospel… However, this would be contrary to Jesus’ command of spreading the Gospel. The Bible even warns us that if we do not inform people of the Gospel we will be held accountable for their deaths (Ezekiel 3:18)! This verse is clearly talking about something other than merely spreading the Gospel.
To correctly understand this passage, we must ask ourselves a few important questions.
1) Who is Jesus’ intended audience?
The Catholic church says that this was directed only at Peter (which is not even hinted at in the verse), they go on to say that Peter was the first Pope (which is historically very debatable) and then continue by saying that the authority of forgiving and retaining sins was passed on to all subsequent popes (which is absolutely preposterous!).
A second view states that this was meant for all believers. A third is that it was meant only for the 11 present and no one else ever again.
The fourth option states that this was meant for leaders, which at that time was the 11 apostles and would then also apply to all subsequent church leaders. I agree with this option and will explain it as we go along.
2) What was meant with the forgiving and retaining of sin?
A very important thing to note is that we never read about any apostle (or any human for that matter– other than Jesus in human form) ever forgiving sin. If people were supposed to confess and the apostles were to forgive them, would it not be written in at least one single verse? The absence of this ritual in the Bible speaks volumes…
This verse may seem straightforward, however, our understanding of it differs from how the apostles understood it. This is because the world has changed. Government structures have changed; justice systems have changed; even society as a whole changed.
Let us look back at the time of the apostles.
What government system was in place at the time of Jesus?
The Jewish land was under Roman control, however, the law and government was in the hands of the Great Council composed of seventy-two members, under the presidency of the supreme high priest.
In reality, the Jewish priests were in control. The religious system was the justice system. (The Romans were very clever. They infiltrated the religious system and through the religious system they could control the justice system…)
This is extremely important to take note of. When Jesus told these people that they must forgive or retain sin they understood it in the structure of their own society.
The religious system was the justice system. The Christian Church was supposed to be the justice system as well as the religious system. In modern times we separate church from the courtroom, but in those days they did not.
In those days, if you stole something and needed to go to jail, they would take you before the priests, who would decide your fate. Jesus is passing this authority over to His disciples, as well as all subsequent church leaders. Jesus was not talking about ‘spiritual’ forgiveness and salvation, He was talking about ‘worldly judicial’ forgiveness!
The apostles understood this to mean that if you (for example) stole something and they forgave you, you would not need to go to jail. If they retained your sin then you had to go to jail. Spiritual forgiveness of sins did not even cross their minds for a moment! This is talking specifically about the leaders leading the church and the community (regarding not only forgiving and retaining sin – breaking of the law – but also the appointment of leaders to leadership and other important decisions).
Conclusion:
This authority was meant for the church to serve the community and the country. The world has thrown away that idea and separated the church from the justice system.
The world may have thrown the idea away, but the authority is still with the church leaders. A leader has the ability to allow people into the congregation as well as to expel them (for valid reasons). This is obviously a very important authority and to handle it correctly the leader needs the Holy Spirit.
The verse implies that the Holy Spirit is involved in the part that talks about forgiving sins. However, since forgiving sins is never mentioned as one of the gifts, and since the apostles never actually go out to forgive men’s sins we have to deduce that this was never meant in the way that the Catholic Church interprets it. This means that certain other gifts are needed to do the job properly. Knowledge, Wisdom and Discernment is vital for the proper use of this authority.
Now imagine this:
A murderer is running from the police. He believes that he might get killed when the police get him, so to set his mind at ease, he pops into the local Catholic Church. He goes to confession and tells the priest everything, he also tells the priest that he is sorry and says a little fake prayer. What the priest does not know is that his heart never changed and he never really repented. The priest then declares that his sins are forgiven. This man then exits the building and gets hit by a car, dying instantly.
Now he appears before God to be judged.
If the Catholics are correct, then God has no choice but to forgive this man, even if he never repented… (So the priest dictates God. That sounds like blasphemy to me…)
If the Protestants are correct, then this man will be cast into hell because he did not accept Christ as his savior and because God is the ultimate authority and He alone judges sin.
What group do you want to belong to? The group that presumes that man can dictate God, or the group that believes that God is God and man is man?
