In his book The Gospel According to Rome, James McCarthy writes (p.82):
"...John 20:23 uses a significant verb tense. The Lord did not say, 'If you forgive the sins of any, their sins will be forgiven them.' Neither did he say, 'If you forgive the sins of any, their sins are forgiven them.' What He said was, 'If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them.'
"Here Jesus uses the Greek perfect tense. 'It implies a process, but views that process as having reached its consummation and existing in a finished state.' This means that the disciples had the authority to declare forgiveness to those whom God had already forgiven."
Whilst it seems obvious to me that this explanation does violence to the apparent meaning of the passage, I am nevertheless unsure as to how to counter this argument at a grammatical or linguistic level.Answer:
I will be glad to help you on this question. I have dealt with McCarthy a few times in the past eight years. Despite McCarthy's kind demeanor, he has a deep-rooted hatred for the Catholic Church. I once sent a letter to his home in California, but he sent it back to me, unopened. I've asked him to debate through other people that know him, but he continually refuses. The person who asked him said that after he suggested that the debate take place in McCarthy's church, McCarthy said that he was insulted we would ask for such a thing, and that he would not let his church be contaminated by our presence there. So now you know what you are up against. McCarthy touts himself as an expert in Catholic areas, but more than often he makes erroneous assertions and conclusions. I interact with him in about half a dozen times in my new book, Not By Bread Alone. He is constantly making assertions about Greek and Hebrew grammar that simply are not true.
It is apparent from his linguistic analysis that McCarthy is not a Greek or Hebrew scholar. As far as I know, he has had no formal training in either language. All he does is parrot Greek and Hebrew grammar books that he then twists to side with his presuppositions. Most of the time, his references do not really apply to the question at hand, and he often misinterprets the author of the Greek grammar. John 20:23 is a case in point.
I'll use the NASB: "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them, if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained."
First, just using common sense, if McCarthy's claims are true, then there wouldn't be any reason for Jesus to tell the apostles "If you forgive the sins of any," since under McCarthy's scenario the apostle's forgiveness of sins would not be necessary, because the sins were already forgiven by God. Since sins can't be forgiven twice, and since no man could usurp or trump God, then if God has already forgiven the sins, it is a moot point as to whether or not the apostles forgive the sins.
Second, the words "have been forgiven them" comes from the Greek ‘apheoontai’. This is a verb in the indicative mood, perfect tense, passive voice. Here is McCarthy's explanation of the perfect tense:
"Here Jesus uses the Greek perfect tense. 'It implies a process, but views that process as having reached its consummation and existing in a finished state.' This means that the disciples had the authority to declare forgiveness to those whom God had already forgiven."
We'll attack this in two ways: one is in regard to the other NT usages of the perfect passive ‘apheoontai’; the other is an examination of the Greek perfect tense in general.
The Perfect tense in Greek is used for a variety of things. It is not confined to what McCarthy has described above. Moreover, in many instances, the Perfect tense of Greek cannot be adequately translated into English, since English does not have an interval of time between the act itself and the time when the act is spoken about; nor can English properly express the idea of existing result which the Greek perfect conveys.
The nuances of the Greek perfect tense can be seen in the other usages of apheoontai. This perfect tense verb (in the indicative mood, passive voice) is used 6 times in the NT. The first is Luke 5:20, 23 in which Jesus is forgiving the sins of the paralyzed man. Jesus says to him, "Man, your sins have been forgiven you." Here the perfect tense is used as a present tense, since the man's since were not forgiven previous to his meeting with Jesus.
Another instance of ‘apheoontai’ is Luke 7:47 in which Jesus is forgiving the sins of the adulterous woman. Her sins were not forgiven prior to her meeting with Jesus, thus Luke is using the perfect tense as a present tense. This is confirmed by Jesus' use of the present tense ‘aphietai’ ("is forgiven") in the same verse; the switch to the perfect tense in verse 48 ("Your sins have been forgiven"); and the other people's recognition of a present forgiveness by the use the present tense ‘aphieesin’ ("forgives").
In light of this, one cannot make the conclusion that the perfect tense in John 20:23 can only mean, as McCarthy claims, that "...the disciples had the authority to declare forgiveness to those whom God had already forgiven."
Quite the opposite is true. Since, as noted above, it would be contradictory for the apostles to be told to forgive sins if the sins have already been forgiven by God, the perfect tense of John 20:23 is used only to intensify the result of the action of the apostles to forgive, which is one of its normal uses in Greek.
It would be the same in English if you gave a command to someone and the person who received the command said, "It has been done, sir," or "Consider it done, sir," before he had actually done the task you gave him. He puts his reply in the perfect tense to show you his determination to get the job done, not necessarily because he had already done the job prior to your asking.
In effect, McCarthy's analysis of the Greek grammar of John 20:23 is a total distortion of what the verse is actually trying to say. The grammar, if looked at properly, says the opposite of what McCarthy is claiming. Luke uses the perfect tense not to negate the apostles' prerogative to forgive sin, but to reinforce that prerogative.
Robert Sungenis
Catholic Apologetics International
December 4, 2000
No comments:
Post a Comment