We will now pick back up the topic of the Sacrament of Confession. Previously we considered whether or not Confession is a Christian-kind-of-thing to do. Now we will consider a seminal passage in Scripture regarding the Sacrament of Confession:
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." - John 20:21-23Honestly I feel like just stopping right here and opening up the comboxes. As a protestant and someone who studied the Scriptures ardently, studied theology professionally, and had an active prayer life, I did absolutely nothing with this passage.
Nothing. Zilch. Zero. Nada. It was like a bad birthday present from your estranged Aunt who was coming to dinner--you don't know what to do with it but you're afraid to throw it away in case she looks for it when she visits. So some grotesque looking gnome sits in your bedroom for the rest of your life. When you get married that's an awkward conversation. That was John 20:21-23. Especially verse 23 (you can read a sermon that does just that here). For other examples of a gloss of this passage see Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary, John Darby's Synopsis, or the Geneva Study Bible.
Let's imagine for a moment what one could do to hack--I mean interpret--this text in order to achieve at some level a meaning that could contradict the Catholic position regarding the Sacrament of Confession.
Theory One: The Apostles had now been given the power to forgive people who offend them
Before Jesus breathed on them, no one could forgive anyone. Forgiveness in general is only a Christian behavior.
Reply to Theory 1
Even if one could only forgive if they were a Christian, it would still not follow that this passage is about that. Nowhere does the passage reference that the sin is against the Apostles. Rather, in most translations, the word "of any" describing the "who" is included which implies that the Apostles had the power to forgive or retain the sins of anyone. Since every sin is not a sin against the Apostles per se, this passage is not about sins against the Apostles.
Theory Two: The Apostles could forgive sins, but only the Apostles. It ended after they died.
Classic cessationist argument whereby the Apostolic Church and post-Apostolic Church are night and day different. The Holy Spirit is given to them in unique and miraculous ways, but after the Apostles there were no more miracles since the Gospel had already been delivered. I call this the Humean-hide-and-seek move. John Gill's commentary says so much and Matthew Henry agrees in that they believe Catholics who try to imitate the passing on of this gift to be in error. Henry goes as far as to say that even though St. Peter had this gift, it did not vouchsafe his infallibility in any way of using it.
Reply to Theory 2
In the next post we will consider in Church history how in fact the Apostles handed off their divine ministry to their successors. Scripture also motions at the necessity of the continuation of the Apostolic Church in both the narrative dynamic in Acts (the story doesn't end) but also by the multiple allusions to the ministry of the Church existing "until the end of time". Even more, the classic use of 1 Corinthians 13 by cessationists fails because it assumes what it argues: namely that what is "perfect" has come and so the Apostolic ministry passes away with the coming of the Gospel. However, this type of realized eschatology goes against a basic protestant hermeneutic (that eschatology is not realized) and more importantly implies that Christ's life was somehow less than the "perfect" which 1 Cor 13:10 references. Yet, both readings of the passage are wrong, and what we do know from the passage is that the dynamic ministry of the Church will end, but that end is not arbitrarily at the death of the Apostles but at the glorious return of Christ--yet even then the Church will rule and reign with Him.
Theory Three: This is some type of quasi summary of the Gospel.
(From the Gevena Study Bible) The publishing of the forgiveness of sins by faith in Christ, and the setting forth and proclaiming the wrath of God in retaining the sins of the unbelievers, is the sum of the preaching of the gospel.
Reply to Theory 3
That's a whiff t-ball style.
Theory Four: The Apostles never used this power
This is John Wesley's argument. Despite the fact that, (a) this is one of the few acts Jesus does after his Resurrection and (b) has a Biblical significance of gigantic proportions given its direct parallel to God breathing into Adam's nostrils in Genesis, Christ's act here is some type of cosmic theatre meant to be read about like Odysseus or Macbeth. ["Wasn't that so awesome! All right, time to go home the movie is over."] While it happened, it never happened, and though we read about it, the Church never experienced the ministry.
Reply to Theory 4
(a) There is no other parallel to this in scripture, (b) it makes Christ impotent or at least the Church a type of window-dressing, and (c) wreaks of anti-Papist filth doing damage to the scripture no matter the cost.
What do you do with this passage?
 |
| spurious passage of Scripture that doesn't fit my paradigm |
