Hebrews Chapter Nine, Remission Of Sin

 

Of special note is the conclusion to verse 22. Without shedding of blood there is no remission. Remission of sin is of course what the writer is alluding to. One may remit sin one of two ways, and only one of two. We may place our faith in Christ, whose substitutionary death on the cross paid for our sin by taking the punishment in our stead. Or we may die for our own sin and receive the punishment due: eternity separated from the Creator in the Lake of Fire. 

Only death remits sin. If we refuse Christ, then we accept the only consequence or penalty for sin: spiritual death, or separation from the God who is life, and will not abide death staining His new Heaven or earth. Religion’s substitution will not avail. No prayers, penance, confession, Masses, etc., can replace simple saving faith in Jesus Christ, the only name under Heaven by which men must be saved, Acts 4:12.

 

Shedding of blood is a euphemism. It means, in the context of Biblical usage, the death of the one being spoken of. That is why the Roman Catholic church has misled so many to their damnation. Prayers to saints or Mary, Purgatory, Masses, the Eucharist, et al., do not meet the singular criterion for sin’s remission. Confessionals cannot remit sin; we are not to confess our sins to a priest for absolution, but to God for renewed fellowship (1 John 1:9) or to one another that we may return to a place of fellowship and blessing, James 5:16. Men have no power to remit the sins of others. Only God can forgive in a punitive sense, Isaiah 43:25, Mark 2:7, 10.

 

What of passages like John 20:23? It states, “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” These are the words of Jesus our Lord directly after He says to the apostles, “Receive the Holy Spirit,” John 20:22. The Orthodox churches of Rome and Constantinople might have much to say in regards to this passage and the authority it vests their clergy with. But common (and Biblical) sense argues otherwise. Look at the latter portion of the verse. Imagine God incarnate vesting men with the authority to retain men’s sins. Read in: the authority to cast into Hell by a refusal to remit said sin. Is the individual’s eternal welfare determinant upon man’s fickle choices?

 

This being the case, then what may be said of the passage, “For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses,” Matthew 6:14, 15. In this instance, the Lord encourages a forgiving spirit when another offends us, or commits sin against us. While there is sin committed against us, ultimately, all sin is committed against God, and He is merciful to forgive sin through His Son. Likewise, when we are grieved by someone who sins against us we are commanded to forgive, lest our own sins, due to our proud, hardened heart, are not forgiven and we lose the seat of fellowship and blessing.

 

As for John 20:23, I believe it is seen in practice in the epistles to the Corinthians. In 1 Corinthians chapter 5, Paul is appalled that a man has been having an amorous relationship with his father’s wife. Paul condemns this conduct and commands the Corinthian church to excommunicate him, 1 Corinthians 5:5. In 2 Corinthians chapter 2, Paul revisits the issue; this time praising them for their majority action in removing the sinful influence of the man from the congregation. However, it seemed that the man in question repented, and now the apostle encouraged forgiveness (remission of sin) and reconciliation back into fellowship, 2 Corinthians 2:6-8. Here we witness, in a practical application, retention and remission of sin, and why either would be exercised. Notice also, that the entire church was involved in the decision of removing the sinful man from fellowship: not an elite clergy class. “This punishment which was inflicted by the majority.” It means the church body considered and determined a fitting discipline for the man. We learn that retention of sin involves the removal of the influencer from the body, for the sake of its purity and that man’s punishment. Remission involves an act of reconciliation and forgiveness when the offending party acknowledges and departs from the sin that caused the schism to begin with.

 

To remit or retain sins in John 20:23, then, has nothing to do with allowing or preventing one’s access to God and Heaven. Rather, it is to encourage or admonish new believers in the faith not to remain in sin, but to be cleansed and, “go and sin no more,” John 8:11. To suggest that John 20:23 is a verse that teaches that men have been given power over other men’s souls does violence to the doctrine of Biblical salvation, and verses such as the one we’re currently studying.