Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ John

[Read It]

"If you forgive the sins of anyone, their sins are forgiven. If there is anyone whose sins you don’t forgive, their sins are not forgiven."

This is where Jesus appears to His apostles after His resurrection.

My question is about the forgiveness of sins. Do you think this power to forgive Jesus gives is just for the apostles? Or does it include anyone who has the Holy Spirit?

[jimwalton]

It is pretty solidly and consistently thought to include all Spirit-filled and Spirit-guided people. Leon Morris writes in his commentary:

• The passage does not mention the 12. There is no evidence that the gift was given only to them.
• John speaks of “the disciples” as being present (20.19-20)—a term in John often used as a way of indicating that Jesus is really speaking to all believers.
• There were almost certainly others besides the 10 apostles in the room at the time. The gift Christ made was surely made to the church as a whole.
• Nor is there any reason to assume the words apply only to the ordained ministry.
• “Are forgiven” and “are retained” are in the perfect tense, meaning that the Spirit-filled church can pronounce with authority that the sins of such-and-such people have been forgiven or have been retained. If the church is really acting under the leadership of the Spirit it will be found that her pronouncements in this matter do but reveal what has already been determined in heaven.
• The words for “whose” (“anyone”) are plural. It is the sins of whatever people, not the sins of whatever person, to which the verse refers. Jesus is not speaking of individuals, but of classes. He is saying that that Spirit-filled church has the authority to declare which sins are forgiven and which sins are retained. Nor does there seem to be ground for thinking that we have here a special application by one individual, whether minister or not, to another of the remission (or retention) of sin spoken of. The use of “any” in the plural appears to be inconsistent with such a view. It is not a direct address by one person to another that is thought of. It is a proclamation from one collective body to another—from the Church to the World.

[Read It]

I tend to agree with this reading however I’m having a difficult time trying to understand what this looks like in application. For example hypothetically, if an unrepentant adulterous husband is forgiven by a spirit-filled wife, does the husband ever have to be sorry? Or does the forgiveness of the spirit-filled wife provide supernatural healing of the husband? Or is the forgiveness of the husband by the spirit filled wife the way her sins are forgiven by God?

I hope that makes sense—

[jimwalton]

Jesus isn't making a comment that we can take apply to any and every situation, as you are trying/hoping to do in your example. He is saying, instead, as N.T. Wright says: that Christians "are to be people through whom forgiveness of sins becomes a reality in the world." The apostolic age is such that the forgiveness of sins that Jesus offers and grants to believers can and should be paid forward in our relationships with each other. It's not commenting on whether or not the perpetrator has to be repentant, or whether one is able to provide supernatural healing to another.

> Or is the forgiveness of the husband by the spirit filled wife the way her sins are forgiven by God?

This is not the intent or meaning of the passage, but there are other places where Jesus says that our forgiveness by God is dependent on our forgiveness of others (Mt. 6.15; 18.35).

[Gr8t]

the position as a whole may or may not be correct, but i have issues with several of these points.

> The passage does not mention the 12. There is no evidence that the gift was given only to them.

Jesus spoke in private, most likely from the text only to the 10 (the way thomas is mentioned later strongly implies this). that is a piece of evidence. the fact that this gift is nowhere repeated to Christians in general elsewhere in the bible would be another.

> There were almost certainly others besides the 10 apostles in the room at the time.

i don't see this in the text

> The gift Christ made was surely made to the church as a whole.

circular - assumes the conclusion

> The words for “whose” (“anyone”) are plural. It is the sins of whatever people, not the sins of whatever person, to which the verse refers. Jesus is not speaking of individuals, but of classes.

this favors the opposite conclusion, as the 12 were earlier given a very similar authority toward towns regarding shaking the dust off their feet. the brief nature of the wording would indicate a reminder or continuation of the previous bestowal.

[jimwalton]

> Jesus spoke in private, most likely from the text only to the 10
> >There were almost certainly others besides the 10 apostles in the room at the time.
> i don't see this in the text

It mainly comes from Luke 24.33-35. In John 20.18, Mary Magdalene was with the disciples. So, in v. 19 where it says "on the evening...the disciples were together," who all is there? Is Mary Magdalene? Is Mary, Jesus's mother? (for instance, as in Acts 1.14-15). Also look at Lk. 24.33, where it says the 11 AND OTHERS were assembled together. And in Lk. 24.35, those others are still there when the Lord appears to them. My belief would be that the whole Church is being sent (20.21), the Holy Spirit is given to the whole Church (v. 22), and that the grace of forgiveness is also a gift to the whole Church (v. 23). That truth is symbolized in the presence of others besides the 11 when Jesus says these things.

> circular - assumes the conclusion

The point is that these gifts from Christ were given to the whole Church, not just to the 11. There is not a single example in the Acts or Epistles of an apostle taking it on himself to absolve or pardon anyone. These teachings were for all believers, practiced by all believers, and the apostles themselves didn't claim any special unction.

[Gr8t]

thanks for the luke passages, that's interesting. i might argue that the transition phrasing about the evening and the lack of a mention of mary right after she was mentioned would indicate she wasn't with them.

also, it was evening and they were locked up for the night. would it have been improper for them to be locked up with mary?

> There is not a single example in the Acts or Epistles of an apostle taking it on himself to absolve or pardon anyone.

which makes sense, since it's been established that this isn't about individual absolution.

there's an example in the gospels of them shaking the dust off their feet toward a town though. and i thought there is one in acts too but i might be remembering wrong.

[jimwalton]

> also, it was evening and they were locked up for the night. would it have been improper for them to be locked up with mary?

The text says the doors were locked for fear of the Jews, not necessarily because they were in for the night. "Evening" started at 6:00 and was considered to last until 9, when "night" began.

> i thought there is one in acts too but i might be remembering wrong.

Acts 13.51: "So they shook the dust off their feet as a warning to them and went to Iconium."

[Gr8t]

> The text says the doors were locked for fear of the Jews, not necessarily because they were in for the night

i agree, but if they are locked up and hiding for the evening, it's reasonable to assume they aren't going anywhere for the night either. remember we aren't talking modern locks, we are talking a huge beam barring a door that would have been hard work to move. and if they are scared enough to barricade themselves, they probably aren't going anywhere anyway.

> Acts 13.51: "So they shook the dust off their feet as a warning to them and went to Iconium."

thanks. which, was barnabus and saul, which could go toward either side of the argument:

• not just the 10 but the whole church, because we have saul and barnabus
• only apostles, which includes saul (untimely born), and barnabus as his companion/under his apostolic authority.

the latter form being one argument for the inclusion of books in the canon which were written under apostolic oversight and authority but are not themselves from an apostle.