Temporary Cancelation of Sin’s Consequences Through Intercession
I am convinced that Scripture shows us that we can “pray sickness off someone” who deserves to be sick because of his own sin. In order to prove this, we will have to wade into some controversial verses, but that doesn’t scare me. I think by the time I’m done, you will agree with me based on what the Bible says and you may finally have a good explanation of certain tough verses that most people struggle to understand (or give up trying to understand).
Let’s dive right into one of the toughest verses in the New Testament:
John 20:23:
Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and those soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
The first question might be whether we should accept the Roman Catholic explanation of this verse, which is that the apostles and their successors actually have the ability to forgive sins in Jesus’ name. According to Roman Catholicism, you can only forgive sins committed against you, and only Catholic bishops and priests can forgive sins committed against someone else.
We can dismiss that right away because in the passage in question, Jesus made this statement to all the disciples present, not just one or more special apostles who had special authority. This is easily proved:
John 20:19-24:
Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.
Then Jesus said to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father has sent me, even so I send you.
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
This could not have been only for the apostles, as Thomas, who was an apostle, wasn’t there when Jesus said these things, and other disciples who were not apostles were there!
So these statements must have been for Jesus’ followers, then and now, and not just for apostles and their “successors.” We thus rule out the Roman Catholic position that what Jesus described was not something for you as His general follower.
The next question one might ask is whether there a difference between “remitting” a sin and “forgiving” a sin in the underlying Greek or if this is just a quirk of how the King James translators handled this verse. Looking at the Greek answers this conclusively. NO, there is no difference. The same word translated remit in this verse is translated forgive in many other verses, many of which are well-known:
“And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors…For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” – Matthew 6:12,14-15
“…All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.” –Matthew 12:31
“So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.” – Matthew 18:35
“When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.” – Mark 2:5
“…lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.” – Mark 4:12
“…Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.” – Luke 7:47
“…If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.” – Luke 17:4
“…Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do…” – Luke 23:34
“…Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven…” – Romans 4:7
That isn’t even a complete list, but it should be enough to make my point. We cannot declare that there is any difference between “remitting” and “forgiving” a sin. In fact, we can make this same point coming from the other direction, too. It should be clear the remission means that same things as forgiveness:
“To give knowledge of salvation until his people by the remission of their sins,” – Luke 1:77
“And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations…” – Luke 24:47
“…whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” – Acts 10:43
“…without shedding of blood there is no remission.” – Hebrews 9:22
That isn’t a complete list either, but again, it should be enough to make my point. Remission and forgiveness are the same thing, so we must not create an artificial distinction.
However, that makes John 20:23 even more problematic, since we really are talking about forgiveness of sins. Does this mean that we can save someone from hell by declaring his sins forgiven? Obviously not, as we could then just do this to everyone and negate Jesus’ statement in Matthew 7:13-14 that many follow the way that leads to destruction and few follow the way that leads to life.
So we’ll have to come up with another explanation. We can look back at the fact that Jesus had just said two verses earlier, “…as my Father hath sent me, even so I send you.” So maybe this is tied to being sent. If so, the explanation emerges that if you “forgive” someone’s sins by telling that person that gospel instead of keeping it from him, the person can be forgiven, but if you “retain” that person’s sins by not being willing to share the gospel, his sins will remain unforgiven. Seems logical, so perhaps this is our way out of the controversy. We’ll have to look into this some more.
The Greek verb tenses for remitted and retained are worth looking at for the sake of completeness, and we find something interesting about them. Remitted is in the present tense, but retained is in the perfect tense, and thus would be better translated have been retained. So Jesus actually said that whoever’s sins you retain have been retained. Young’s Literal Translation and the NASB get this right, while most translations miss this nuance. That puts a different spin on things. It would seem to support the “sent” theory, because if you tell someone the good news, their sins CAN be forgiven, but if you don’t forgive the person enough to tell him the good news, his sins already ARE unforgiven with no action needed on your part or his part to make that the case.
Another Greek point we can look up is the word retain, which is used all over to mean hold. In other words, our explanation must take into account the literal meaning, “If you hold someone’s sins, they have been held.”
So is John 20:23 about sharing the gospel and not intercession, as it seems? Any alternative explanation would have to take the Greek nuances above into account. Also, what about the law of sowing and reaping? If someone sows to the flesh, he reaps from the flesh corruption (Galatians 6:8). Aren’t we on thin ice (or broken ice) if we think that intercession can negate spiritual laws?
Well, we don’t want to jump to conclusions too quickly about negating spiritual laws, because even in the natural, one natural law can supersede another natural law. For example, the law of lift can supersede the law of gravity. If this were not the case, no airplanes or birds could fly.
Scripture itself affirms that one spiritual law can supersede another spiritual law:
Romans 8:2:
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Paul did not deny the reality of the law of sin and death. He just said that there was a higher law that superseded it. Every sinner deserves punishment for his sins. But grace in the New Covenant can set someone free from what he deserves. It is a higher law that was not available under the Old Covenant.
So if we see someone sinning, we know that he deserves whatever sickness might result from it. Sickness is part of the curse for breaking the Law (Deuteronomy 28:15-68). But even under the Old Covenant, we see God’s mercy supersede the law of sin and death and the law of sowing and reaping, which both lead to sickness and death:
Psalm 107:17-21:
Fools because of their transgression, and because of their iniquities, are afflicted.
Their soul abhorreth all manner of meat; and they draw near to the gates of death.
Then they cry unto the LORD in their trouble, and he saveth them out of their distresses.
He sent his word, and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions.
Oh that men would praise the LORD for this goodness, and for his wonderful works to the children of men!
In fact, the more we look into the relationship between healing and atonement, the more we see that atonement cancels what is rightfully ours according to the law of sin and death and the law of sowing and reaping.
Then we have to consider that we have been given the right to lay hands on the sick and have them recover (Mark 16:18). This could fall under what is often known in the church world as “the law of contact and transmission.” Clearly, this law can trump the law of sowing and reaping, as there is NO requirement that the person you lay hands on stop sinning or even repent of his sins before you lay hands on him in the name of Jesus for healing.
When we think about what Jesus did, we see that He went everywhere superseding the law of sin and death and the law of sowing and reaping! So rather than fearing breaking those spiritual laws, we should follow Jesus’ pattern and do our utmost to supersede them as He did.
In fact, it’s clear that Jesus forgave people, and if He did, and we are supposed to do His works (John 14:12), we should forgive people as well. Yet we clearly can’t offer “get-out-of-hell” forgiveness by forgiving them ourselves, as avoiding hell occurs when GOD forgives someone. This MUST refer to something else.
So now we have another possible explanation of this verse:
“If you forgive a sin, the person will not face its just consequences but will rather get the consequences of being forgiven, but if you hold a sin, the person will face the same results he is already facing due to his sin.”
This seems sensible in light of Jesus’ ministry, but we would not want to build a castle on one verse. We must consider whether there is anywhere else in Scripture that deals with waived consequences to sin without the person being saved from hell. And actually, when we start looking for them, they keep popping up. Let’s take another verse that is the subject of considerable debate:
1 John 5:16:
If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
The Roman Catholics use this verse to distinguish what they call “mortal sins” such as sexual immorality and missing weekend “mass” without a valid reason and what they call “venial sins” such as receiving communion at a Protestant service. In their false works-oriented paradigm, you must get to a confessional and have a priest absolve you of your mortal sins or you will go to hell. But that cannot be what John was talking about here. In this case, real “mortal sin” is so bad that it would be a waste of time for anyone to pray for someone who has committed it. The person would be beyond help from anyone, a Roman Catholic “priest” or even a biblical priest (any New Testament believer, per Revelation 1:6 and Revelation 5:10). John appears to talk about a reprobate who is beyond the place where he can ever repent and come back (Hebrews 6:4-6).
But here John explicitly talks about someone who has sinned and praying on that person’s behalf. If the person isn’t an irredeemable reprobate (very few people are), God will give “life” in answer to someone else’s prayer for him. It seems that “life” would be the opposite of “death” that the person has coming to him due to the law of sin and death. However, it is once again clear that this cannot mean “eternal life” that would spare the person from going to the lake of fire forever. This prayer can only bring “life” into a specific situation by sparing the person the legal consequences of sin.
Still, you’d have a right to think that this logic is only shallowly developed, so we need more Bible examples of asking “life” for someone. Fortunately, we won’t have to look too far.
Acts 7:60:
And he [Stephen] kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.
Now things are starting to get clearer. Stephen was clearly not asking God to let them into heaven. How do we know? Because Stephen asked God not to lay this sin (not all their sins) to their charge. So here we have a clear case where a believer is praying for a sinner to be spared the consequences of a particular sin.
Stephen’s prayer followed Jesus’ example:
Luke 23:34:
Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.
Clearly this was asking God to overlook the particular thing they were doing, not EVERY sin they had already committed. If it were every sin, He could have told all the Roman soldiers that they would be with Him in paradise, but He only said that to a thief who had exercised faith who was crucified next to Him. He was clearly asking God to spare them the consequences they deserved for this particular sin.
Paul also prayed something similar for fellow believers whose sins were already forgiven!
2 Timothy 4:16:
At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me. I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge.
What did he mean by “laid to their charge?” Their sins, as believers, were already forgiven (Ephesians 1:7, Ephesians 4:32, Colossians 1:14, Colossians 2:13, Colossians 3:13, 1 John 2:12). So Paul could not have been asking for legal forgiveness of their sin of deserting him, because they already had God’s forgiveness for doing it. Their “charge” would be consequences in this life.
You can be forgiven and still reap trouble. For example, you could hook up with some floozie in a bar and be forgiven as far as eternity goes but still have child support payments! After all, Galatians 6:8 was written to forgiven Christians! It would seem that Paul’s intercession was for them to not to reap trouble in this life because of their sin, given that there will be no trouble in eternity. The reaping of corruption from the flesh in Galatians 6:8 has to apply only to this lifetime, as you will never reap any form of corruption in heaven. So we are talking about praying away temporal trouble because of sin.
This actually makes some other “difficult” Scriptures make more sense. For example, in 1 Corinthians 5:1-5, Paul commands the Corinthians to “hand over to Satan” an unrepentant sinner in the church so that he would repent and get saved. Were they to invoke some kind of evil witch curse and say, “Satan, take him, destroy him, have a field day with him, then kill him – he’s all yours?” We NEVER see Christians being told to “pray” that way in the New Testament! The only sensible explanation for “handing over to Satan” would mean ceasing to intercede for his welfare – to stop “praying off” the effects of his sin and fending off the law of sowing and reaping. They were to let things play out without interference so that he would reap what he sowed. Is that cruel? Not as cruel as enabling his serious sin by continuing to fend off trouble for him in prayer, in which case he might end up in hell, never having seen a need to repent. This man needed the serious reality check that disfellowshipping him and ceasing to pray for him would provide. (As noted elsewhere, it worked as planned.) The fact that the “handoff” was “for the destruction of the flesh” indicates a temporary affliction that would get his attention, as the whole purpose would be thwarted if Satan completely had his way and killed him.
In a similar situation, Paul apparently stopped asking God to intervene for two troublemakers:
1 Timothy 1:19-20:
Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:
Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that might learn not to blaspheme.
Notice that in both cases, these were not genuine Christian brothers but troublemaking fakes. And before you go “handing over to Satan” someone who treated you poorly at church, consider that this was a church function, not an individual function. It’s an extreme case, but sometimes it has to happen. I’ve been in only two churches where this was necessary (one of which I started), and I can tell you that people will leave the church when you obey the Bible in this manner and accuse you of “not understanding grace!” Apparently, a number of people never got the memo that grace is not an excuse to deliberately sin and keep getting away with it while hurting other people and causing sin to spread like cancer in the church. By the way, the person we applied this to was on good terms with us for a long time many years later when she realized we had done the right thing. That was the result God wanted.
A very early reference to “praying off trouble” through intercession is found all the way back in Job 22:30. The KJV is misleading on this one:
Job 22:30:
He shall deliver the island of the innocent; and it is delivered by the pureness of thine hands.
I’m not sure what caused the KVJ translators to use the word “island” when the underlying Hebrew word’s meaning is not – it’s speaking about the “not innocent” and ALMOST every translation other than the KJV reads something like the NKVJ: “He will even deliver one who is not innocent; Yes, he will be delivered by the purity of your hands.” Young’s Literal Translation reads, “He delivereth the not innocent, Yea, he hath been delivered By the cleanness of thy hands.” So once again, we can pray and spare someone bad consequences that he deserves.
The theme we are developing here is seen again in James:
James 5:15:
And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up, and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.
This HAS To concern a temporary forgiveness that covers the effects of sins in this life that were the underlying cause of the illness. (Note that not all illness is due to sins in someone’s life.) How can we be so sure? Because EVERYONE commits sins! There is no “if” about it. It is 100% CERTAIN that the person calling for the elders of the church has committed sins! Yet James said he’ll be forgiven IF he’s committed sins! This has to be limited to the scope of sin that was involved with the condition and indicate that the Lord will release him from justly reaping what his sin sowed. Another way we can be sure it’s limited in that way is that if ALL his sins were forgiven, the way to go to heaven would not only be by being born again but alternatively by calling for the elders of the church to anoint you with oil! Yet more proof is the fact that without the shedding of blood there is no remission (Hebrews 9:22), so this cannot refer to the permanent legal forgiveness that only blood could purchase.
One Scripture that is tempting to add to this list is 1 John 1:9, but I prove elsewhere that this is NOT talking about confessing sins to God to get some kind of temporary forgiveness.
Consider the case where Jesus told a paralytic that his sins were forgiven (Luke 5:17-26 and elsewhere). Did this mean that all his sins were forgiven so that he could go to heaven without being born again? Obviously not. But Jesus overrode the effects of sin. Doing this is not permanent, though, as proved by the fact that Jesus told the man at the Pool of Bethesda to sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon him (John 5:2-19). His past sin was robbed of its ability to keep the man sick, but unless he repented of his sin, he would end up even sicker than before regardless of what Jesus did that day. The price of sin was waived temporarily.
So it seems that we CAN “pray off” the ill effects of sin in someone’s life, at least for a season. If someone racks up $50 in debt, I can pay off that $50. But that $50 will not pay off another $50 debt that the same person racks up – I would have to come up with another $50. If the person kept racking up more $50 debts, I would be the fool if I kept paying them off without doing anything to try to help the underlying issue. It would eventually do the person more of a favor to NOT pay off a $50 debt so that the person has to come to grips with his behavior. If people keep sinning with no consequences, they may not learn anything, and it can do them a favor to stop praying if you have to keep praying about the same thing over and over with no change in the person’s attitude toward sin.
Getting back to John 20:23, I can’t fault you if you take the “forgive others and tell them the gospel” explanation, as it can be reasonably defended with Scripture. You could even preach a sermon on how you should witness to Muslims (I have many times) rather than writing them off as hell-bound and saying, “I’m not witnessing to those people because I’ll never forgive them for what they did to the Twin Towers.”
But I think this explanation is thin. Do we make a conscious effort to “forgive the sins” of everyone we’re about to share the gospel with? I don’t, and you probably don’t either. If you’re preaching to any significant number of people, you don’t know their sins and you can’t possibly forgive them for anything specific they’ve done. You’d have to make an effort to apply some kind of blanket forgiveness to them in your mind. Still, I see people come to Christ without such mental gymnastics and so can you.
Another issue is that the people being “forgiven” in the Scriptures in this section were specifically identifiable people, not people in a big crowd whom the person doing the forgiving had never met personally and know nothing about. If I have a word of knowledge that someone is about to receive a specific healing, how do I forgive that person I’m calling out when I don’t even know at the time (in some cases, at least) which person it is? The idea that I have to forgive a person before he can receive healing ministry doesn’t resonate with Scripture.
I think there are enough Scriptures in this section to make a strong case for praying sin’s consequence of sickness off individuals. There are no instructions that we have to try to forgive – or invoke God’s forgiveness on – every individual on whom we lay hands for healing or to whom we minister healing any other way. We have authority over sickness in another person’s body whether or not that person is forgiven. Like Jesus, we can go about doing the works of God and destroying the works of the devil without having to deal with the issue of forgiveness for each person first. Every one of them “deserves” sickness from an Old Testament legal perspective, but we can preach to them the grace of The Lord Our Healer who gives people better than they legally deserve.