EXEGESIS ON JOHN 20:23

FORGIVENESS OF SINS

Introduction

The New Testament has many challenging texts that have caused a lot of discussion

among scholars, and certainly John 20.23 is one of them. This text has often been used as textual

proof for the doctrine of forgiveness of sins held by the Catholic Church, and indeed has

provoked a lot of speculations among interpreters. So it is necessary to approach this text in the

correct way and specially unlink it of any religious and traditional dogmas of Christianity. One

has to see it in its own context, this is to say in the context of the gospel of John and in the

context of the broader Jesus’s teaching concerning the forgiveness of sins.

Statement of the problem

When penetrating the New Testament teaching about forgiveness of sins is impossible to

avoid this passage of John 20:23. It has been proposed different explanations about the meaning

of this rather short portion and is often said that this is the Johannine version of Matthew 16:18-

20 or even the version of the great commission in John, and also it has been proposed that this

another New Testament validation of the role of the priests in the forgiveness of sins. However,

what is the real meaning of this passages in John? What is the actual objective of this declaration

of Jesus in the context of the gospel of John? Does it imply that forgiveness of sins also

depended on the willingness of the disciples to forgive them? The answer to this questions are

critical to understand the meaning of John 20:23 and clear away some doubts about the mechanic

of forgiveness of sins in the teachings of Jesus.

 Methodology

This paper will fallow the traditional process of exegesis and when necessary

complement the exegetical finding with rhetorical critic analysis as proposed by George A.

Kennedy.1 The application of this rhetorical methodology would not be exhaustive but just as

complement to understand the context of John 20:23 and the interest possible motive of the John

in placing this Jesus words in this particular. In this sense this will be a double methodology

between exegesis and rhetorical criticism.

Delimitation

This paper has the intention of analyzing exegetically the meaning of John 20:23 and as

much as possible to look at the direct context which begins in verse 20 to 23. There is no

intention of analyzing other passages like Matthew 16:18-20, but they will be mention just to

compare the popular understanding in relation to John 20:23.

Presuppositions

The author if this paper accepts the inspiration of the Scriptures and its transcendence as

the word of God, therefore the application of rhetorical criticism will be not provided of any of

the presumptions of the historic-critical methodologies. It implies that the author does believes

that the author of has guidance of the Holy Spirit and that John used his rhetorical skills to

1
Though I will describe shortly some procedure of the rhetorical analysis it will be to complement the
exegetical findings. To look at the whole process of rhetorical criticism the reader can read George A. Kennedy,
New Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical Criticism, (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press,
1984), 33–8. Here the reader will find some examples of application of this methodology in the NT.
convince his audience about the reality of the risen Son of God. But then again, the application

of this method will be limited and mixed with the exegetical methodology.
 CHAPTER 2

Context of John 20:23

The larger context John 20:23 of John stars could well start in chapter in 13:1 where John

reports that “now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to

depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved

them to the end” (John 13:1). The context here is the last Passover of the three that the evangelist

informs.

Here the phrase ὅτι ἦλθεν αὐτοῦ ἡ ὥρα ἵνα μεταβῇ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου πρὸς τὸν

πατέρα clearly informs that a different part in John narrative has just initiated. From now on, the

evangelist is narrating the last moments of Jesus his disclosure in the cross and then his

resurrection. This narrative that leads up to the appearance of Jesus to the disciples for three

times in chapter 20 and 21. Chapter 20 is in the context of the resurrection and posterior

disclosure of Jesus to the apostles.

Chapter 20 begins the resurrection narrative. Mary Magdalene is first character that is

mentioned as the one who very early visited the tomb. Now, when we compare the other

resurrection narratives for example in Matthew 28:1 Mary Magdalene went not alone to the

Tomb. She is said to be with with “the other Mary” presumable the mother of Jesus. However,

this is not clear wheather it was the mother of Jesus or not. Anyway, Mary Magdalene is not

alone, but for any reason John chose not to mention the other Mary. Mark adds even a third

person in the group of women that went to see Jesus. This other one mention in Mark 16 was

Salome. But also is true that Mark reports that the first one to whom Jesus appeared first was
Mary Magdalene. Luke even speaks about more women who had contact and realize the Jesus

was not in the tomb. John chose to mentions this Mary and remained silent about the rest. In the

same verse 2 after realizing Jesus is not in the tomb, she runs to tell the report to Peter and the

“other disciple.”

The identity to of this other disciple is also very puzzling so it is necessary to come back

to his person later on. As a result of Mary’s report they run to check the tomb and saw the

clothing Jesus had but not to Jesus. John again and again has the interest of showing the attitude

of this other disciple that he does not mention by name. Verse 8 the evangelist reports that “then

the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed.”

Unlike Perter this disciple does not see Jesus and as a result he immediately believes. The voice

of the narrator appears to explain what was the condition of the understanding of the disciples in

verse 9, saying “for as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise from the

dead.”

The text again in verse 11 switches the attention toward Mary. In verse 12 she sees two

angels and then they ask her in verse 13 the reason of her sadness and weeping. She replies that

the body of Jesus was stolen, and right after she said that she turned and saw Jesus, but did not

recognize him. So Jesus asks her back again about her cry and about her quest. Here we can

notice the strong interest of the narrator about the risen Jesus and how is the rhetorical process

that Jesus used to convince about his resurrected state. When her name is called out by Jesus, the

author sees that she addresses Jesus in Aramaic as “Ραββουνι” which according to the text itself

means teacher. Jesus then tells her in verse 17 “do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to

the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father,

to my God and your God.” This way of Jesus addressing Mary Magdalene is very unique, since
he is asking her not to hold him because he has not yet ascended to the father. Then, he sends

hers to “my brothers” and inform them that he is ascending to his father. Jesus uses a series of

very personal repetitions with the possessive pronouns (Ἀναβαίνω πρὸς τὸν πατέρα μου καὶ

πατέρα ὑμῶν καὶ θεόν μου καὶ θεὸν ὑμῶν).

The next part of the story goes from verse 19 to 23. Is here where the Lord shows to the

disciples. The text narrates that they were having the door locked for fear to the Jews and though

the place is not mentioned here is logically assume that is inside Jerusalem. Jesus comes in

where they are and greets them with the usual Hebrew greeting. “Peace be with you” and them to

make sure that they recognize him, shows them the wounds in his hands and side.

Immediately after informing the gladness of the disciples after having seen Jesus. He

speaks to them again with the greeting and followed the Johannine version of the gospel

commission in verse 21 “peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending

you.” This version of the mission of Christ to the apostles is the introduction and the preceding

context of verse 23. Here Jesus tell them that just as the Father sent him, he is sending them. But

before he breathed on them as a way of giving them the Holy Spirit. He is equipping then as thus

partially fulfilling the promise o the Sprit as was given in chapter 15 when he promises that he

will send the Holy Spirit, even thought, the complete fulfilment of that is described in Acts 2.

This first part of the sending and equipping is the context of verse 23. Verse 23 will be taken in

detail below.

Verse 24 is marks the beginning of another Jesus disclosure, but this one is focused

around Thomas. Until now is possible to trace this series of Jesus’s disclosures, which are,

Jesus’s appearance to Mary, to the disciples, except Thomas; Thomas showing his unbelief in

Jesus’s resurrection and putting his faith conditional, “unless I see him.” After Jesus encounter
with Thomas this chapter appears to end the book with the author giving his theological point

and kind of a conclusion with the words “now, Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the

disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that

Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. But then

it seems that John has some additional material.

Rhetorical Criticism Procedure

Before work continues with the process of analysis of John 20:23 is important to define

the methodology it is going to use and its process. but first it is critical to remember that we will

have for the sake of complementing a mix of rhetorical criticism and the traditional exegetical

procedure. Now is necessary to define what is rhetorical criticism and what is the process that it

takes to apply this methodology.

Rhetorical Criticism

Kennedy defines rhetoric as “the quality in discourse by which a speaker or writer seeks

to accomplish his purposes. Choice and arrangement of words are one of the techniques

employed, but what is known in rhetorical theory as "invention"—the treatment of the subject

matter, the use of evidence, the argumentation, and the control of emotion—is often of greater

importance and is central to rhetorical theory as under stood by Greeks and Romans.” 2 This

presuppose that as the Greeks and the Romans, the writers of the NT use rhetoric skills so that

their audience or their readers could believe or believed more firmly in the message they were

2
George A Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical Criticism, (Chapel Hill: The
University of North Carolina Press, 2014).
trying to convey. In other words, NT writers are rhetorical and a study of the methods can be

done by the rhetoric discipline.

Kennedy believes that rhetorical criticism can help to fill a void which lies be tween form

criticism on the one hand and literary criticism on the other. This methodology invites the Bible

student to go beyond the form criticism, and study more the text to understand the flow of the

argument of the NT writers. Since the scripture was written for a persuasive purpose.3

Deniss Stamps explains that “rhetorical criticism is concerned with the rhetoric of

persuasion, that is, how the textual components work together to persuade the reader to adopt

particular theses presented within the text for their assent; narrative criticism is concerned with

the rhetoric of narrative, that is, how the components of story-telling work together to create

narrative coherence.”4 Therefore, the critical agenda for rhetorical criticism is to is to discover

and examine the textual components and to analyze how they work together to create a

purposeful effect.

Rhetorical criticism takes the text as we have it, whether the work of a single author or

the product of editing, and looks at it from the point of view of the author's or editor's intent, the

unified results, and how it would be perceived by an audience of near contemporaries. In doing

this, rhetorical criticism differs from redaction criticism, to be more specific rhetorical criticism

focuses in the final product and not in the hidden redactor process.

On the characteristics of rhetorical criticism Strauss informs that

Aristotle distinguished three types of rhetoric. Judicial rhetoric was meant to accuse or
defend, as a lawyer would do in a court of law. Deliberative rhetoric was used to

3
Ibid, 4.

4
Dennis L. Stamps, Rethorical and Narratological criticism, in Handbook to the exegesis of the New
Testament, ed. Stanley Porter (Laiden: Brill, 2002 ), 220.
 persuade or dissuade, as a politician trying to convince an audience at a political rally.
Epideictic rhetoric was used to praise or blame another’s actions, as a friend might
eulogize another at a memorial service. Aristotle also categorized three kinds of appeal:
logos (logic; sound reasoning of the mind), pathos (stirring the emotions of the heart),
and ethos (character; appealing to what is morally right or noble). Cicero identified three
purposes of rhetoric: to instruct, delight, and persuade.5

Steps for Applying Rhetorical Criticism.

In his book Kenney gives 5 steps to do a rhetorical analysis of any argument in the NT,

which are

1. Determine the rhetorical unit, either a self-contained textual unit or an entire book;

2. Define the rhetorical situation, that is, the person, events and exigence which

precipitated the rhetorical response.

3. Determine the species of rhetoric (judicial, deliberative or epideictic) and the

rhetorical problem or stasis.

4. Analyze the invention (argument by ethos, pathos and logos), arrangement (the

ordering of the argument according to the components such as the exordium or

introduction, the narratio or statement of facts, the probatio or main body of the

argument, and the peroratio or the conclusion), and style (the use of figures of speech

and other such devices to shape the speech according to the needs of the invention).

5. Evaluate the rhetorical effectiveness of the rhetorical response in addressing the

rhetorical situation.6

5
Strauss, Mark L. Four Portraits, One Jesus: A Survey of Jesus and the Gospels. ()

6
See George A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical Criticism, 33., and Dennis L.
Stamps, Rethorical and Narratological criticism, 227.
 Application to john 20:23

In the gospel of John therefore this steps should e applied and having in mind that one

may or may not apply to the gospel since the gospel unlike the letter of Paul do not follow

structured arguments. However, it has been recognized that the gospels have their rhetorical

focus to accomplish the purpose for which they were written. For example, it has been identified

that John has a great rhetorical force which moves to the epilogue. And even that the gospels

might have been arranged toward an oratorical structure. Among the gospel John cold have been

the one which has the most elevated style.

Is logical to conclude that john 20:23 is within a larger rhetorical unit. Since this one is

defined by Kennedy by as the pericope, which normally will be longer than 6 verses sometimes a

rhetorical unit could be formed by the whole book.7 When identifying three rhetorical unit is this

part of John I will be better to see this one as starting in chapter 20 and going up to chapter

20:31. Chapter 21 is left out since even though, both chapters speak about Jesus appearing to the

disciples, chapter 21 is different because is the second time he appears to them and they are

conscious about his resurrection . 21:1 gives the clue, “after this Jesus revealed himself again to

the disciples by the Sea of Tiberias, and he revealed himself in this way. 2 Simon Peter, Thomas

(called the Twin), Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two others of his

disciples were together.” The one not mention here purposely in the enigmatic is the beloved. He

will appear later on at the end of the chapter (v.20). This feature, provides the key to identify the

rhetorical unit. The fact that he reveled again allows the reader to think that a new section with a

different purpose has begun, but of course they share common key points.

Now, not always the chapter division will help to recognize the units but in this case

7
Kennedy, 33.
chapter 20 is very definite since it talks, first a Jesus that is not found by Mary, nor by Peter and

for the other disciple (the beloved) from verse 1-10. Here, they do not find Jesus (only the

wrapping that he had) therefore, they go back home, but Mary stays. The fact that Mary stays

gives the next of for the second part of this big unit, and that is, Jesus disclosure to Mary. This

goes form verse 11 up to verse 18.

Then the third smaller unit begins from verse 19-23. Is in this segment where Jesus

displays himself to the disciples, sends them, and he breaths on them the Holy Spirit. And is here

where this small unit is found, where he says to them “if you forgive the sins of any, they are

forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld (v. 23).” Finally, the next

subunit here is Jesus special encounter with Thomas from 24-31.

The second step is to define the rhetorical situation. the person, events and exigence

which precipitated the rhetorical response. At this stage, says Kennedy “n a still broader way we

may say that an evangelist felt an exigence to proclaim the gospel, and that in doing so he felt an

exigence to include certain of the doings or sayings of Jesus which reveal that gospel or help to

establish its validity.”8 Here in John 20 the motivation is not only to convince the characters that

Jesus is risen, but also to convince to the audience that they might believe. The topic of believe

pops up in different moments. First the one confronted with believing is the beloved, “then the

other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; or as yet

they did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead. (v. 8-9).” Even if the

beloved is not mention here is pretty clear that this first one in believing is him. Later is Mary, in

her case, she was confused but when Jesus addresses her by name she also believed.

8
Kennedy, 35.
 Thenceforth, verse 20 says the disciples after seeing Jesus hands and side also believed.

Therefore, they received the commission. Then, the last one confronted with believe is Thomas,

he is hard to believe and ask for proof, later Jesus comes in and give him the proof so that he

does not have other option, but to do the same. Thomas answered him, “my Lord and my God!”

Jesus said to him, “have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have

not seen and yet have believed (v. 28-29).”

So, the rhetorical situation here is present in the characters, Peter, the beloved, Mary, the

disciples and Thomas, and it may be possible to add those the audience, which is present in verse

30-31 when John says “now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which

are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ,

the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” In other words, the author

is with the words πιστεύητε ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ ἵνα πιστεύοντες

ζωὴν ἔχητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ is addressing the audience again using the subjective mode in

ἔχητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ.

The third step is to determine the species of rhetoric (judicial, deliberative or epideictic)

and the rhetorical problem or stasis. The identification this species in John 20 may be a bit blur

because this three forms may not be visible in the text. However, one can assume that this text

could be deliberative. A deliberative rhetoric aims to effect a decision about a future action. This,

is seen in the desire of the author to get people to believe in the risen Lord, because he is true and

divine, he overcome death. “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believe” Jesus

stated and then that ye might believe because of the past actions of Jesus; his resurrection,

appearance and sings to the disciples.

 The four step is to analyze the invention (argument by ethos, pathos and logos),

arrangement (the ordering of the argument according to the components such as the exordium or

introduction, the narratio or statement of facts, the probatio or main body of the argument, and

the peroratio or the conclusion), and style (the use of figures of speech and other such devices to

shape the speech according to the needs of the invention).

In applying this step in John 20 is important to notice the John in focused on the logos or

the appeal to logic. He is engage is showing the empiric prove on Jesus resurrection and

authority to send the disciples. He sees Jesus as addressing Mary by name so that he can believe,

showing his hands and his side to the disciples and specially to Thomas so that he might do the

same. And reporting that Jesus did many other sings so that you (the plural audience) may

believe. Therefore, reason works, empirical facts, miracles, the physical sings of Jesus work. His

resurrection was real, the sings he did were real, his mission to the disciples was real.

Everything, shows John appealing to the logos or appeal to logic. The facts are clear, so there is

no way of not to believe in the argument of John.

The last step is to evaluate the rhetorical effectiveness of the rhetorical response in

addressing the rhetorical situation. The argument of the author is clear and is probably seen more

precise with the las two verses in chapter 21 “This is the disciple who is bearing witness about

these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true. Now there

are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that

the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” John is saying, with all these

things or testimonies that I have told you and the other which are not here you are compelled to

believe. He wants to secure that his testimonies, his factual proofs are clear and enough even to

the hard people to believe like Thomas. Tomas here could also exemplify some people among
the audience of John.

CHAPTER 3

Views on John 20:23

 After employing criticism to understand the context and the audience of John with this

rhetorical criticism method in John 20, this paper shall continue to highlight some scholarly

views specifically on John 20:23. Some feel that Interpreters of John 20:23 are often guilty of

divorcing the text from both its immediate context a larger context in the Gospel of John. This is

done for various reasons. Some see it as a later editorial addition. Others, for more polemical

reasons, interpret it in light of texts outside of the gospel which are believed to be antisacerdotal.

Still others interpret it in light of similar phrases in the Gospel of Matthew. 9

Each of these approaches is unfortunate and suggests some methodological problems on

the part of the interpreter. Consequently, with it can be summarized in three ways, first those

who say that it is a later addition, others see the text in light of other texts backing up sacerdotal

work or rejecting it, others in light of similar phrases in the gospel of Matthew. A fourth position

may emerge to say that indeed disciples were being allowed to forgive sins but only sins that

God had previously chosen to forgive.

As way to answer to those who take this verse a later addition, it might be said that the

text fits well in the corpus of John since it accords with the literary setting of the Gospel.

However, some have noticed some variants in manuscript from the perfect form of the verb to

the present.10 To support the textual change and the sacerdotal importance Cătălin Varga says

The textual and patristic support of the perfect αφεωνται “have been forgiven”, as we
have already proven, is insufficient, the versions kept in most of the manuscripts of the
New Testament, use the Present Indicative most often ἀφίενται “are forgiven”, or the
Future αφεθησεται “will be forgiven”, both indicating the sacramental value of the text of
Saint John and implicitly the direct role of the clergy in the matter of forgiving the sins of
the people. After a brief patristic survey, we noticed that almost all the fathers of the
9
Steven E. Hansen, "Forgiving and Retaining Sin: A Study of the Text and Context of John 20:23",
Horizons In Biblical Theology 19, no. 1 (1997): 24-32.

10
Cătălin Varga, Problematic Missionary Text: John 20:23 and the Issue of the Translation of the Two
Main Clauses (ἀφίενται and Κεκράτηνται), Studia Ubb Theol. Orth., Vol. 60 (2015): 91-106.
 Church use the version with the present of the verb in their commentaries, except for
John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria and John Damascene. But none of the three doubt
the power that Christ offered His Apostles and disciples to forgive the sins of the people.

However, this work does not support a reading with the present but with the traditional one,

meaning to say the perfect tense. And to go against the view that the whole text is a later

insertion see how John Ashton arguments that

“The themes of peace, joy, mission, the bestowal of the Spirit. Read in conjunction with
the Farewell Discourse the episode may be clearly seen as the articulation, in narrative
form, of themes that had hitherto been reserved for discourse. Just as in the body of the
Gospel the great confrontational scenes between Jesus and his adversaries are the
narrative version of the judgement motif, so here, towards the end of his book, the
evangelist recapitulates the chief elements of the promise of return that is the main
burden of the Farewell Discourse. Here is prophecy fulfilled.”11

His idea is that this topic is repetitive in the John because it fits into a certain structure of

topics that are put in chain order. So this position might be discarded from the beginning and the

remaining ones should be discussed.

There is also other group who approach this text with a theological agenda, that is to

support the office on sacerdotal figure or to deny it. Often both group bring foreign proof texts to

John 20:23. Some like Tobias Hägerland is sure the this can be an allusion taken from Numbers:

22:38, 23:5,12,16. He sees here the disciles acting like prophets, in other words they were

supposed to say just what the Lord says. How can I curse whom God has not cursed? How can I

denounce whom the LORD has not denounced? Hägerland belives that this is exacly that is

presented in John. The disciples received the word of God like prophets from the spirit of the

Lord. they are going to forgive sins that are previously forgiven by God, and retain those who

God has previously retained. He bases his argument in the present perfect use of the verbs in

John 20.23 (ἀφέωνται, κεκράτηνται). There verbs are the result or the apodosis, and since this

apodosis is in perfect passive, it means that are not the disciples the ones who supposed to
11
John Ashton, Understanding The Fourth Gospel, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 485.
forgive their sins by their authority, but they are to declare forgiveness that was previously done

by God. So in this sense they are prophets, they proclaim forgiveness to those who are forgiven,

and proclaim doom and eschatological judgment to those who whom the Lord have not forgiven.

This proclamation needs to be done by the authority of the Holy Spirit, that is expressed in

20:22.12

No in direct opposition to this understanding of the perfect apodosis found in John 20:23

and in other passages like Matthew 16:16, 18:18. This argument does not go against the

prophetic-like job of the apostles, but against the treatment given to the perfect apodosis. Since

not always the perfect is necessary prior to the action of the former clause, that is the clause in

subjunctive mode. It may sometimes in other passages point to a future action and to this is given

the name “perfect for future perfect.”

With this fancy name of the perfect apodosis Matthew, for example, seem to imply a

permanent condition rather than a condition prior to the time of the relative clause. If they are not

periphrastic they may well mean, “Whatever you bind or loose on earth will prove thereafter to

have been bound or loosed in heaven.” This future nuance the future perfect denotes that an

action will be already finished at some future time often denotes the continuance of an action, or

the permanence of its results, in future time, sometimes denotes certainty or likelihood that an

action will immediately take place. Now this clearly points to a defense of Sacerdotal work in

three passages.13

12
Tobias Hägerland, The Power of Prophecy: A Septuagintal Echo in John 20:19-23, The Catholic Biblical
Quarterly, 71 (2009):84-103.

13
Henry J. Cadbury, "The Meaning of John 20:23, Matthew 16:19, and Matthew 18:18", Journal of
Biblical Literature, 58, no. 3 (1939): 251-254.
 In the same year that Cadbury published his article in JBL also J.R Mantey published on

the same topic and on the same issue. Both articles resulted in radical opposition to one another

in their understanding of the perfect tense of the apodosis. Mantey argued that the perfect

indicative represents a past action as present in relation to the speaker and he cites many Greek

grammars and syntax books, as well and verbal examples in the NT. Therefore, the result of his

study is that he ended up radically opposed to the view Cadbury. His conclusion is that “In

conclusion, there is no instance in the New Testament of anyone having practiced sacerdotalism,

nor is there any record in the first two centuries of anyone making use of John 20:23, Mt 16:19

or Mt 18:18 to support such a doctrine. And an accurate translation of the perfect tense precludes

the possibility of such a teaching in the New Testament.”14

Both arguments above are given with different materials since Hägerland is looking at the

passage of John as echo of LXX version of Numbers 22:23, or the Balaam circle.

Others like D.A Carson instead of basing his argument in the perfect form of the

apodosis, he inclines himself toward the passive ἀφέωνται and κεκράτηνται to say that this state

indicate that is God the one acting. He arguments that “the Christian witnesses proclaim and

declare, and, empowered by the Holy Spirit, live by the message of their own proclamation; it is

God who effectively forgives or retain sins. Thus, Christian ministry is a continuation of Jesus’s

ministry: through the gift of the Spirit the authority that Jesus exercises is repeated in the lives of

his disciples. Thus, the retention of their sin as both description and condemnation. And the

14
J. R. Mantey, "The Mistranslation of the Perfect Tense in John 20:23, Mt 16:19, And Mt 18:18", Journal
of Biblical Literature, 58, no. 3 (1939): 243-249.
Paraclete who is given as a gift to Jesus’s followers (v. 22) continues the same two-edged work

with them.” 15

Analysis of the Greek text.

ἀφῆτε. This verb appears 143 times in the NT. In the bool of John is present 15 times. In

this form aorist active subjunctive 2nd plural is just in 5 verses, 2 of which are in the gospel on

john and 3 in the gospel of Matthew. (a) I send away; (b) I let go or away, release, permit to

depart; (c) I remit, forgive; (d) I permit, followed by the subjunctive with (or without) ἵνα, or

with acc. obj. and infin.; ἄφες ἐκβάλω (Mt. 7:4 = Lk. 6:42), let me (allow me to) cast out: so also

Mt. 27:49 = Mk. 15:36, John 12:7.16 All its range of meaning go from send away, dismiss, suffer

to depart; to emit, send forth, to remit, forgive, pardon; to relax, suffer to become less intense.

The use of this verb in the subjunctive mode is just evident in the NT, especially in the context of

forgiveness of sins. Examples like in Matthew where it says “for if you forgive others their

trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their

trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses (ESV 6:14).” Text is similar to John

inasmuch it has forgiveness as a condition to be forgiven, but is here where also the difference is

seen. In Matthew the context is the forgiveness that needs to happen between one person to

another, however, in John is within the context of the disciples sending and receiving the Holy

Spirit

15
Donald Arthur Carson, The Gospel According to John Grand Rapids, (Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2016), 524.

16
Alexander Souter, A Pocket Lexicon to the Greek New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1917), 44.
 κρατῆτε. This verb is in 2 plural present active subjunctives. In this form is only here in

John 20:23. And in all the forms in found 47 times. It means I lay hold of, take possession of,

obtain, c. gen. and (much oftener) c. acc.17 The following form κεκράτηνται of the same verb

κρατέω is also present here one time in this verse.

The forgiveness of sins in the Gospel and in the NT

At this point it is necessary to see in a quick way how is seen the forgiveness of sins

starting with gospel of John and then, going out to other texts to support the Johannine version of

forgiveness of sins. In the gospel of John is pretty clear that forgiveness of sins is deeply linked

with the believe. In John 8:24 this is clearly stated by Jesus when he says So he said to them

again, “I am going away, and you will seek me, and you will die in your sin. Where I am going,

you cannot come.” So the Jews said, “Will he kill himself, since he says, ‘Where I am going, you

cannot come’?” He said to them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I

am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am

he you will die in your sins.”

In this confrontation with the Pharisees Jesus leave them clear what their unbelief will

bring to them if they do not believe in him. Unless they believe in him they will perish. Some

text before he was speaking about the relationship between he and his father. John 3:18 Jesus

stress out this point of believing in him and how critical it was Whoever believes in him is not

condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in

the name of the only Son of God.

This importance of believing in the risen Christ is also present in chapter 20 and 21 as it

has been noticed before in the rhetorical analysis question, therefore, John 20:23 is the giving of
17
Alexander Souter, APGLNT “κρατέω” 139.
the authority to those who believe in Jesus, they receive the Holy Spirit, thenceforth they also

enjoy the mission of the forgiveness of seen by that authority bestowed to them through the Holy

Spirit.

A key text in the gospel of John that links the forgiveness with the holy Spirit and

condemnation is John 16:8,9 “and when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and

righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me.” Here the work

of the Holy Spirit is comparable with what Jesus told the disciples. Note the similitude of this

text with John 20:22-23 “and when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them,

“Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold

forgiveness from any, it is withheld.” Comenting on John 16:8-9. Ridderbos says that

The idea, as has already been stated in general terms in 15: 26, is rather that in his witness
vis-a.-vis the world the Spirit acts as (helper-) Paraclete to the disciples in their ongoing
witness concerning Jesus by portraying to them the true nature of the world, of Jesus'
departure, and of his victory over the world. Verses 9-11 go on by explicating how the
Spirit proves the world guilty: "with respect to sin, that they do not believe in me" (vs. 9),
"with respect to righteousness, that I go to the Father and you will see me no more" (vs.
10), and "with respect to judgment, that the ruler of this world is judged" (vs. 11). For the
first the Evangelist refers back to 15:2lff. (cf. 9:41).
The witness of the Spirit, thus described, is not - anymore than that of the Son himself -
aimed at the commendation and destruction of the world in the judgment of God (cf.
3:17). But vs. 9 does heavily underscore where, in this 'contest" with the world, the Spirit
draws the line of demarcation and on what his witness - and that of the believing
community that is shaped by his assistance - is concentrated: on faith in Jesus, in whom
God has spoken his decisive word in the world, both to save and to judge (3:36). 18

Following this line of thought, that the Spirit is a witness for condemnation, how much

the apostles that have received the Holy Spirit. What the Spirit does is performed through the

human agent. Through the apostles, the Spirit is forgiving or condemning the world.

18
Herman N Ridderbos, The Gospel of John, (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 1997), 531-532.
 To go further, apart from the gospel of John, the rest of the evangelists also support the

same view that John, that is to say, forgiveness of sin can be obtained only through Jesus.

Therefore, when Jesus starts his ministry, he also begins forgiving sins. This fact created enmity

between him and the Jewish leaders, since they rightly pointed out that “why does this man

speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone? (Mark 2:7, Luke

7:49,).” Jesus has that authority since it was his appointed mission before his birth, “he will bear

a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins (Matthew

1:21).”

After having said this, is critical to enhance the point that was made previously by

Mantey that “there is no instance in the New Testament of anyone having practiced

sacerdotalism, nor is there any record in the first two centuries of anyone making use of John

20:23, Mt 16:19 or Mt 18: 18 to support such a doctrine.”19 Sacerdotalism has to do with a priest

forgiving sins in the place of Christ. Mantey has done right is stating so. If one takes a careful

look in the book of Acts there is no possibility to find any apostle forgiving sin, what we found is

just the confirmation of the NT about this issue. Acts 3:38, for example, says that “God, having

raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you by turning every one of you from your

wickedness.” Is Jesus, the messiah, who is the who is able to save people from their sins. Acts

5:31 also confirms this statement made here, adding the Holy Spirit as a witness, and it utters

“God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and

forgiveness of sins. And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God

has given to those who obey him.” This same idea is repeated again in Acts 10:43 “to him all the

prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his

19
J. R. Mantey, "The Mistranslation of the Perfect Tense in John 20:23, Mt 16:19, And Mt 18:18", JBL, p.
249.
name.” Therefore, in Acts is pretty clear that the disciples continuously saw the forgiveness of

sins as a business pertaining only to Jesus Christ as port of his mission to the world. They see

themselves as prophets in the sense that they are called to proclaim this message to the world.

Furthermore, this practice of sacertotalism is not found NT but come later on inside the

catholic tradition and later in the orthodox tradition. Therefore, one should not impose this

practice foreign to the NT, even though it was based in the traditional understanding of Matthew

16:16 and John 20:23. The teaching of the Catholic Church is clear in this since they believe that

“He established his Church to preserve his teachings intact until the end of Time and to
offer them to everybody on Earth (Mt 28:18–20), he ensured that he would be
sacramentally present in the Eucharist (Mt 26:26–29; Mk 14:22–25; Lk 22:14–20; Jn 6;
etc., etc.), and he empowered that Church to offer that means—and the other sacraments
—to keep us close to him, to give us the grace that we need to avoid sin, and to offer
forgiveness, reconciliation, and a chance for atonement when we slip up (Mt 18:15–18;
Jn 20:21–23).”20

The church has the right conferred by Christ to offer forgiveness, teaching that became to

be popular among the Church Fathers21 and later on develop in different councils.

Ellen G. White on John 20:23

The position of Ellen White on this stamen of Jesus was consistently clear with what we

find the Bible. She comments that

Christ gave no ecclesiastical right to forgive sin, nor to sell indulgences, that men may sin
without incurring the displeasure of God, nor did He give His servants liberty to accept a
gift or bribe for cloaking sin, that it may escape merited censure. Jesus charged His
disciples to preach the remission of sin in His name among all nations; but they
themselves were not empowered to remove one stain of sin from the children of Adam....
Whoever would attract the people to himself as one in whom is invested power to forgive

20
Kevin Orlin, Johnson, Why Do Catholics Do That? A Guide to the Teachings and Practices of the
Catholic Church, (Ballantine, 1995), 85.

21
Se for instance Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on John 7.20, in Corpus Scriptorum
Christianorum Orientalium, fourth series, vol. 3, ed. Bernard Coulie et al. (Louvain: Université catholique de
Louvain, 1903), 357.
 sins, incurs the wrath of God, for he turns souls away from the heavenly Pardoner to a
weak and erring mortal.22

In a different book and referring to John 20:23 she says “the meaning of this is, Ye shall

prescribe and publish the terms on which the salvation of the soul rests. She then continues

Has the Lord placed this amazing power in the hands of finite men, and left them to
exercise this power merely according to their own human judgment, and the strength of
their own memory? Was their understanding or the understanding of any created being
sufficient to have men left to their prerogative to prescribe and publish the terms of their
obedience, which should be followed by forgiveness of sins, and disobedience which
would prevent sin from being forgiven? The declaration of our Savior is clear, the
language plain. The very terms which they should prescribe as the proper foundation for
the remission or retention of sin would be the terms according to which God would remit
or retain them. This power was spoken of as delegated to His chosen ministers, who acted
in the place of Christ in church discipline.23

As can be seen clearly in the last two lines, she understood this authority in

relation to the process of church disciple as the means of the church retaining, but at the

end this power rest only in Christ.

CONCLUSION

22
E. G. White, SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5 (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing

Association,1956), 245-246.

23
White, E. G. (1889). Ms 21, 1889.
 After considering the text and the different position is healthy to say that there is no

consensus among scholars on John 20:23. The difficulties often resides when some support a

Catholic understanding and other see this with the lens of a protestant theologian. However, as it

was said before, both ways force the text with different agendas and backgrounds and the forgive

that it should be understood in its proper context. Therefore, above study allows to state the next

conclusions.

1. Forgiving and retaining sins should be understood according to the “believe motif” as

seen previously by the application of the steps or rhetorical criticism. The belief motive is

the idea that runs throughout the book, and specially here in John 20.

2. It is at the end a work of the Spirit as is stated in John 16: 8-10 “and when he comes, he

will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin,

because they do not believe in me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father,

and you will see me no longer; concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is

judged.” When Jesus infused the disciples with the Spirit. He, the Spirit, used as

instrument the disciples.

3. The Holy Spirit gave the disciples to act like a prophet. In this line Hägerland puts this

right when he says. “The commissioning formula ‘If you forgive the sins of any they are

forgiven for them, if you retain [the sins] of any they are retained’ (20.23) strongly

echoes Balak’s words to the mantic Balaam, ‘whoever you bless is blessed, and whoever

you curse is cursed’ (Num 22.6). Both Balaam and the disciples of Jesus have, for all the

differences that exist between them, an infallible prophetic ability to proclaim and to

effectuate blessing/forgiveness and curse/retention according to the mind of God. None

of them is, however, entrusted with an autonomous power to bless, to curse, to forgive or
 to retain at will. John 20.23 should therefore be taken as saying that the disciples can rest

assured of the Spirit’s presence to inform them about what God has already decided.”24

4. And finally, Sacerdotalism is foreign to the NT. However, White sees in this verses along

the same line that Hägerland the commission of the missionaries of Christ in so far as

they “encourage the sinner to repent, and believe in Him who can pardon. Let them

declare, on the authority of God’s word, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to

forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”25

24
Tobias Hägerland, Jesus and the Forgiveness of Sins, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014),
75-76.

25
Ellen White, Gospel Workers, (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1915),
503.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Souter, Alexander A Pocket Lexicon to the Greek New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1917.

Ashton, John. Understanding the fourth Gospel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Cadbury, Henry J. "The Meaning of John 20:23, Matthew 16:19, And Matthew 18:18". Journal
of Biblical Literature 58, no. 3 (1939): 251. doi:10.2307/3259489.

Carson, Donald Arthur. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 2016.

Varga, Cătălin Problematic Missionary Text: John 20:23 and the Issue of the Translation of the
Two Main Clauses (ἀφίενται and Κεκράτηνται), Studia Ubb Theol. Orth., Vol. 60 (2015):
91-106.

Hansen, Steven E. "Forgiving and Retaining Sin: A Study of the Text and Context Of John
20:23". Horizons in Biblical Theology 19, no. 1 (1997): 24-32.
doi:10.1163/187122097x00021.

Hägerland, Tobias. Jesus and The Forgiveness Of Sins. New York: Cambridge University Press,
2014.

Hägerland, Tobias. The Power of Prophecy: A Septuagintal Echo in John 20:19-23, The Catholic
Biblical Quarterly, 71 (2009):84-103.

Porter, Stanley E. Handbook to the Exegesis of The New Testament. Laiden: Brill, 2002.

Johnson, Kevin Orlin. Why Do Catholics Do That? A Guide to the Teachings and Practices Of
The Catholic Church. Ballantine, 1995.

Kennedy, George A. New Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical Criticism. Chapel Hill:
The University of North Carolina Press, 2014.

Mantey, J. R. "The Mistranslation of The Perfect Tense In John 20:23, Mt 16:19, And Mt
18:18". Journal of Biblical Literature 58, no. 3 (1939): 243. doi:10.2307/3259488.

Ridderbos, Herman N. The Gospel of John. Grand Rapids, Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans, 1997.

Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on John 7.20, in Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum

Orientalium, fourth series, vol. 3, ed. Bernard Coulie et al. Louvain: Université
catholique de Louvain, 1903.

White, E. G. Gospel Workers 1915. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing
Association, 1915.
White, E. G. (1889). Ms 21, 1889.