Episode 127: Second Sunday of Easter, Divine Mercy Sunday | Year C
In today’s episode, we focus only on the Gospel reading for this upcoming Divine Mercy Sunday, which is John 20:19-31, the famous passage where Jesus tells the apostles, “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” The obvious apologetical topic is the Sacrament of Confession. But for this episode, our particular focus will be on Protestant comebacks to the sacramental reading of this text.
Readings: Click Here
Looking for Sunday Catholic Word Merchandise? Look no further! Click Here
Hey everyone,
Welcome to The Sunday Catholic Word, a podcast where we reflect on the upcoming Sunday Mass readings and pick out the details that are relevant for explaining and defending our Catholic faith.
I’m Dr. Karlo Broussard, staff apologist and speaker for Catholic Answers, and the host for this podcast.
In today’s episode, we’re going to focus only on the Gospel reading for this upcoming Divine Mercy Sunday, which is John 20:19-31, the famous passage where Jesus tells the apostles, “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” The obvious apologetical topic is the Sacrament of Confession. But for this episode, our particular focus will be on Protestant comebacks to the sacramental reading of this text.
As I point out in my book Meeting the Protestant Response, there’s only one major objection that Protestants make to the Catholic argument from John 20:23: Jesus’ instruction is a command for the apostles to preach the forgiveness of sins, and God is the one who will forgive or retain based on how the hearer of the gospel message responds. There are several reasons, however, that Protestants give to justify this claim, each of which becomes its own distinct comeback. We’ve looked at one of them for last year’s Divine Mercy Sunday. Today, we’re going to look at two others. For the remaining comebacks, you’ll have to get my book.
Protestant pastor Todd Baker argues in his book Exodus from Rome, Vol. I that “the commission Jesus gave in John 20:23 is the same event recounted in Luke 24:46-48.” Verse 47 is the key verse: “Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, ‘Thus it is written . . . that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations.”
Since Baker thinks John and Luke describe the same event, he concludes that the instruction to forgive and retain sins in John 20:23 has the same meaning as the instruction in Luke 24:47: the disciples are to “go into the world and proclaim that the forgiveness of sins is offered in the name of Jesus Christ . . . whereby the forgiveness of God is offered through faith in Jesus Christ to those who repent and believe, but is withheld to those who do not believe.”
Now, it’s true that Jesus’ instruction in Luke’s Gospel refers only to the preaching of the forgiveness of sins. But the objection assumes that the sequence of events in which this instruction is included (Luke 24:44-52) happened on Easter Sunday, and thus that it’s the same as the instruction in John 20:23. A careful reading, however, indicates otherwise.
Several times in the verses preceding the sequence of events in question (Luke 24:44-52), Luke uses time cues to indicate that what he’s recording took place on Easter Sunday: “On the first day of the week, at early dawn” (v. 1), “that very day” (v. 13), “that same hour” (v. 33).
But when Luke records the sequence of events that include the instruction to preach the forgiveness of sins, there are indications that he doesn’t tie it to Easter Sunday. One could argue that earlier, in verses 41-42, Luke had already dropped chronological narration of the events that took place on Easter Sunday. Notice how he speaks about Jesus requesting from the disciples something to eat and them giving him “broiled fish.” It’s possible that Luke here is giving his version of the same tradition found in John 21:9-13, which John tells us is an event that occurred after Easter Sunday, sometime later when the disciples had returned to Galilee.
Moreover, the event described in Luke 24:39-40, where Jesus invites the apostles to handle him and he convinces them that he is not a ghost, may be Luke’s presentation of the same tradition found in John 20:27, where Jesus allows himself to be handled and calls attention to his (wounded) hands and feet. Again, if this is the same tradition, John informs us that this occurred after Easter Sunday—exactly one week after.
It may be that for both events mentioned above John provides us a chronological placement, whereas Luke mixes them topically with other post-Resurrection material as evidence that Jesus has been physically raised. Topical arrangement is not uncommon for the biblical authors.
Now, someone may counter and say Luke clearly connects Easter Sunday with Jesus’ appearance to the disciples and his invitation for them to handle him in verses 36-43, because Luke says Jesus appears while the disciples on the road to Emmaus are telling other disciples what happened, which for Luke occurred on Easter Sunday (see Luke 24:1,13,33).
Even if we grant for argument’s sake that what Luke records in verses 36-43 occurred on Easter Sunday, Luke does seem to move on from this event and summarize a series of events that took place during the period of forty days that Jesus spent with his disciples prior to his ascension (Acts 1:3).
Notice that Luke connects Jesus’ instruction to preach the forgiveness of sins with Jesus’ instruction to preach his name “to all nations,” and that they were to begin in Jerusalem (v. 47). He also includes the Father’s promise to “send power from on high” (v. 49).
These are all items that Luke includes in his list of things that Jesus taught his disciples during the forty days before and on the day of his ascension (see Acts 1:1-10). Therefore, these instructions, including the instruction to preach the forgiveness of sins, likely were not given in the upper room on the night of Jesus’ resurrection.
One could even read these instructions as given on the day of the Ascension, since it has to do with preaching to the nations (see Matt. 28:19-20), and Luke places them right before he records the Ascension.
So, the fundamental assumption of Baker’s is false. Therefore, it has no persuasive force against the sacramental reading of John 20:23.
Let’s now turn to the next comeback. Protestants also try to justify their reading of John 20:23 by appealing to the Greek. Many argue that the Greek text reveals that the forgiveness and retainment of sins is something God has already done before the apostles declare it to be so.[i] Todd Baker’s formulation of the argument is exemplary. Again, this comes from his book Exodus from Rome, Vol. I:
The phrases Jesus spoke “are forgiven” and “are retained,” are spoken in the perfect tense. The verse would then literally read: “If you forgive the sins of any, they are already forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are already retained.” Anyone familiar with Greek grammar here will know the perfect tense normally expresses a past action completed with ongoing results. Therefore, the forgiveness or the retainment of sins has already occurred prior to the disciples’ ability to declare this to be so. The perfect tenses used in John 20:23 are in the passive voice and at once show it is God who is acting alone, either to forgive or retain the sins of the one being acted upon. Jesus is giving the authority for the disciple to affirm or deny this is the case, where God has already determined the results of either action.
For Baker, the perfect tense of the Greek words translated “are forgiven” (apheōntai) and “are retained” (kekratēntai) implies an abiding state that began before the actions of “forgiving” and “retaining” are accomplished. This, Baker argues, implies that God is the one forgiving and retaining, not the apostles.
We need to first point out that the question is not whether God is the one forgiving or retaining. The Catholic Church affirms that God forgives (and retains) in the sacrament of confession (CCC 1441). He just does so through the ministry of the apostles (1495). The real question at hand is when God does this.
The counter-argument is that the use of a perfect tense in the second part of a conditional statement—called the apodosis (“they are forgiven”)—necessarily refers to an action that is prior to the first part of the conditional statement—called the protasis (“if you forgive the sins of any”). These are the grounds for interpreting the passage as meaning that the apostles merely declare what God has already done.
But the assumption here is false. Consider what John, the same author, says in 1 John 2:5: “Whoever keeps his word, in him truly love for God is perfected [Greek, teteleiōtai—perfect passive].”
This has the same structure as John 20:23:
| Protasis | Apodosis | |
| John 20:23 | “If you forgive the sins of any” | “they are forgiven [perfect passive]” |
| 1 John 2:5 | “Whoever keeps his word” | “in him truly love for God is perfected [perfect passive]” |
In 1 John 2:5, John uses the perfect tense, teteleiōtai, in the apodosis, yet the perfection is accomplished not before the keeping of Christ’s word, but at the time of keeping Christ’s word. Clearly, John’s usage implies an action that occurs when the condition stated in the protasis is fulfilled.
The perfect tense in these passages is known as the proleptic or futuristic perfect, which “can be used to refer to a state resulting from an antecedent action that is future from the time of speaking.”[ii] The use occurs in the apodosis of a conditional clause and “depends on the time of the verb in the protasis.”
Here are some other passages where the action of the perfect tense in the apodosis occurs not before the fulfillment of the protasis, but at the time thereof:
- James 2:10—“Whoever keeps the whole Law but fails in one point has become [Greek, gegonen—perfect active] guilty of all of it.” The guilt is incurred at the time of failing in one point of the Law.
- Romans 7:2—“A married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged [Greek, katērgētai—perfect passive] from the law concerning the husband.” The discharging from the law becomes real upon the woman’s husband dying.
- Romans 13:8—“Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled [Greek, peplērōken—perfect active] the law.” The law is fulfilled when one loves his neighbor.
- Romans 14:23—“He who has doubts is condemned [Greek, katakekritai—perfect passive], if he eats.” Condemnation takes effect when the doubt occurs.
In light of these passages, we can conclude with the late American Bible scholar Henry J. Cadbury, “One may simply assert that the action or condition implied in the perfect is not necessarily prior to that of the other clause.” (The Meaning of John 20:23, Matthew 16:19, and Matthew 18:18,” Journal of Biblical Literature 58, n. 3 (1939): 251-254).
So the Protestant grammatical principle simply does not hold when compared to similar passages. But we can go farther in defending the Catholic understanding.
Elsewhere in the Bible, the Greek word translated as “are forgiven,” aphiemi, is used in the perfect tense and connotes sins being forgiven upon the action of the absolver. Consider, for example, Luke 5:20, wherein Jesus forgives the sins of the paralytic: “And when he saw their faith he said, ‘Man, your sins are forgiven [Greek, apheōntai—perfect passive] you.’”
Another example is Luke 7:47. Jesus forgives the woman who anointed his head at the house of Simon the Pharisee: “Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven [Greek, apheoōntai—perfect passive], for she loved much.”
Luke did not intend to use the perfect tense of aphiemi in these passages to dissociate the forgiveness of sins from Jesus’ declaration of the fact. Rather, Luke, like the bystanders, understood Jesus’ words as a claim to forgive sins at the moment he said they were forgiven.
Consider what Luke records in both passages immediately following Jesus’ pronouncements:
- Luke 5:21—“And the scribes and the Pharisees began to question, saying, ‘Who is this that speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God only?’”
- Luke 7:49—“Then those who were at table with him began to say among themselves, ‘Who is this, who even forgives sins?’”
If we’re not going to dissociate the forgiveness of sins from Jesus’ act of forgiving on account of the perfect tense of aphiemi in these passages from the Gospel of Luke, then we shouldn’t do so for the apostles in John 20:23. As Cadbury writes: “Shall we accept a ‘sacerdotalism’ for Jesus from apheōntai in Luke and deny sacerdotalism for the apostles from the same word in John? Is it not better to treat the cases more alike?”
Conclusion
Well, my friends, that does it for this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word. The readings for this upcoming Divine Mercy Sunday, Year C, provide us with quite a bit of material for doing apologetics, specifically apologetics that deal with the Sacrament of Confession.
As always, I want to thank you for subscribing to the podcast. And please be sure to tell your friends about it and invite them to subscribe as well through any podcast platform that they use. You can also access the archived episodes of the Sunday Catholic Word at sundaycatholicword.com.
You might also want to check out the other great podcasts in our Catholic Answers podcast network: Trent Horn’s The Counsel of Trent, Joe Heschmeyer’s Shameless Popery, Jimmy Akin’s The Jimmy Akin podcast, all of which can be found at catholic.com. And if you want to follow more of my own work, check out my website at karlobroussard.com
One last thing: if you’re interested in getting some cool mugs and stickers with my logo, “Mr. Sunday podcast,” go to shop.catholic.com.
I hope you have a blessed Divine Mercy Sunday, Year C. Until next time, God Bless.
[i] See J.R. Mantey, “The Mistranslation of the Perfect Tense in John 20:23, Matthew 16:19, and Matthew 18:18,” Journal of Biblical Literature 58 (1939): 243-249; Tenney, “The Gospel of John,” 193; Matt Slick, “Does John 20:23 mean that Catholic priests can forgive sins?”, June 1, 2012, https://carm.org/roman-catholicism/does-john-2023-mean-that-catholic-priests-can-forgive-sins/.
[ii] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 581.