• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Forgiving in the Person of Christ

phattonez

Catholic
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,870
Reaction score
4,246
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
2 Corinthians 2:10 "[FONT=&quot]For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ."

Look in your Bibles. You probably have the word "presence" instead of "person". The Douay Rheims translates this correctly. Even the King James version has it right. It changes your view of this tremendously, no? St. Paul acted as Christ in forgiving sins, much as the priest forgives us in the person of Christ in the confessional.[/FONT]
 
2 Corinthians 2:10 "[FONT=&quot]For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ."

Look in your Bibles. You probably have the word "presence" instead of "person". The Douay Rheims translates this correctly. Even the King James version has it right. It changes your view of this tremendously, no? St. Paul acted as Christ in forgiving sins, much as the priest forgives us in the person of Christ in the confessional.[/FONT]

The King James Bible, while beloved by millions and a blessing to millions, contains a number of flawed translations. Almost all authoritative translations use the word 'presence' rather than 'person'. Either way though, Paul was almost certainly not putting himself in the place of the Christ. He was discarding the accusations of those who would harm the church by criticizing the ministers or leaders. His purpose was to show that he too was a forgiving and tolerant and that those who would try to hurt the Church by accusing him were not to be believed or trusted. Much of 2 Corinthians was defense of his and others' ministry and a rebuttal to those who would tear it down. Context is everything.
 
The King James Bible, while beloved by millions and a blessing to millions, contains a number of flawed translations. Almost all authoritative translations use the word 'presence' rather than 'person'. Either way though, Paul was almost certainly not putting himself in the place of the Christ. He was discarding the accusations of those who would harm the church by criticizing the ministers or leaders. His purpose was to show that he too was a forgiving and tolerant and that those who would try to hurt the Church by accusing him were not to be believed or trusted. Much of 2 Corinthians was defense of his and others' ministry and a rebuttal to those who would tear it down. Context is everything.

The Greek word used is prosópon, or προσώπῳ. It is most often translated as person.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosopon
 
And I don't object to that either so long as Paul is not accused of saying something there that he actually is not.

Did I say anything that he didn't say? I just provided a more accurate translation.
 
Did I say anything that he didn't say? I just provided a more accurate translation.

A more common translation of the word in classical Greek, not necessarily a more accurate one for the particular scripture in which it was included. But I wasn't accusing you of anything. I was just saying that I don't care which word is used so long as its intent and meaning is not distorted into something Paul didn't say.
 
Here's how the NLT puts it:

When you forgive this man, I forgive him, too. And when I forgive whatever needs to be forgiven, I do so with Christ’s authority for your benefit
 
A more common translation of the word in classical Greek, not necessarily a more accurate one for the particular scripture in which it was included. But I wasn't accusing you of anything. I was just saying that I don't care which word is used so long as its intent and meaning is not distorted into something Paul didn't say.

So what do you take from what St. Paul said here?
 
See Post #2 please.

I contest that because if that was the case then why bring up the person of Christ at all? He could be forgiving on his own, no?
 
2 Corinthians 2:10 "[FONT="]For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ."

Look in your Bibles. You probably have the word "presence" instead of "person". The Douay Rheims translates this correctly. Even the King James version has it right. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]


I don't think he acted as Christ (as literally taking the person of Christ) - he acted on His behalf.

Here is that verse:

[COLOR="#0000CD"]
2 Cor 2 (nkjv)
5 But if anyone has caused grief, he has not grieved me, but all of you to some extent—not to be too severe. 6 This punishment which was inflicted by the majority is sufficient for such a man, 7 so that, on the contrary, you ought rather to forgive and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one be swallowed up with too much sorrow. 8 Therefore I urge you to reaffirm your love to him. 9 For to this end I also wrote, that I might put you to the test, whether you are obedient in all things. 10 Now whom you forgive anything, I also forgive. For if indeed I have forgiven anything, I have forgiven that one for your sakes in the presence of Christ, 11 lest Satan should take advantage of us; for we are not ignorant of his devices.






Verses 5-11 In these verses the apostle treats concerning the incestuous person who had been excommunicated, which seems to be one principal cause of his writing this epistle. Here observe, 1. He tells them that the crime of that person had grieved him in part; and that he was grieved also with a part of them, who, notwithstanding this scandal had been found among them, were puffed up and had not mourned, 1 Co. 5:2 . However, he was unwilling to lay too heavy a charge upon the whole church, especially seeing they had cleared themselves in that matter by observing the directions he had formerly given them. 2. He tells them that the punishment which had been inflicted upon this offender was sufficient, v. 6. The desired effect was obtained, for the man was humbled, and they had shown the proof of their obedience to his directions. He therefore directs them, with all speed, to restore the excommunicated person, or to receive him again to their communion, v. 7, v. 8. This is expressed several ways. He beseeches them to forgive him, that is, to release him from church-censures, for they could not remit the guilt or offence against God; and also to comfort him, for in many cases the comfort of penitents depends upon their reconciliation not only with God, but with men also, whom they have scandalized or injured. They must also confirm their love to him; that is, they should show that their reproofs and censures proceeded from love to his person, as well as hatred to his sin, and that their design was to reform, not to ruin him. Or thus: If his fall had weakened their love to him, that they could not take such satisfaction in him as formerly; yet, now that he was recovered by repentance, they must renew and confirm their love to him. 4. He uses several weighty arguments to persuade them to do thus, as, (1.) The case of the penitent called for this; for he was in danger of being swallowed up with over-much sorrow, v. 7. He was so sensible of this fault, and so much afflicted under his punishment, that he was in danger of falling into despair. When sorrow is excessive it does hurt; and even sorrow for sin is too great when it unfits for other duties, and drives men to despair. (2.) They had shown obedience to his directions in passing a censure upon the offender and now he would have them comply with his desire to restore him, v. 9. (3.) He mentions his readiness to forgive this penitent, and concur with them in this matter. "To whom you forgive I forgive also, v. 10. I will readily concur with you in forgiving him.’’ And this he would do for their sakes, for love to them and for their advantage; and for Christ’s sake, or in his name, as his apostle, and in conformity to his doctrine and example, which are so full of kindness and tender mercy towards all those who truly repent.
2 Corinthians 2 Commentary - Matthew Henry Commentary on the Whole Bible (Complete)





It changes your view of this tremendously, no? St. Paul acted as Christ in forgiving sins, much as the priest forgives us in the person of Christ in the confessional.

No, it doesn't.

You notice two things quite different? This was not a one-on-one as with a priest in a confessional. Everybody knew about the sin of the man, and everyone it seems had an input as to how he should be punished. Surely, the priest in the confessional doesn't talk to other church members about the confession of the sinner, nor does he asked parishioners what penalty ought to be meted?

Paul talked to the other members about it.
 
Last edited:
2 Corinthians 2:10 "[FONT="]For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ."

Look in your Bibles. You probably have the word "presence" instead of "person". The Douay Rheims translates this correctly. Even the King James version has it right. It changes your view of this tremendously, no? St. Paul acted as Christ in forgiving sins, much as the priest forgives us in the person of Christ in the confessional.[/FONT]

Look at the passage IN CONTEXT:
If anyone has caused grief, he has not so much grieved me as he has grieved all of you to some extent—not to put it too severely. The punishment inflicted on him by the majority is sufficient. Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort him, so that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. I urge you, therefore, to reaffirm your love for him. Another reason I wrote you was to see if you would stand the test and be obedient in everything. Anyone you forgive, I also forgive. And what I have forgiven—if there was anything to forgive—I have forgiven in the sight of Christ for your sake, in order that Satan might not outwit us. For we are not unaware of his schemes.

Paul is clearly talking about forgiving people for personal offences, not forgiving their sins against God (see Matthew Chps. 18, 6; Eph Chp. 4; Mark Chp. 11; Luke Chps. 11, 17; Col Chp. 3)
 
The King James Bible, while beloved by millions and a blessing to millions, contains a number of flawed translations. Almost all authoritative translations use the word 'presence' rather than 'person'. Either way though, Paul was almost certainly not putting himself in the place of the Christ. He was discarding the accusations of those who would harm the church by criticizing the ministers or leaders. His purpose was to show that he too was a forgiving and tolerant and that those who would try to hurt the Church by accusing him were not to be believed or trusted. Much of 2 Corinthians was defense of his and others' ministry and a rebuttal to those who would tear it down. Context is everything.



Every version has "flaws". You have to remember that there are three or more languages involved and any time you translate you risk changing something. This is one reason the Bible is the single most studied written work in the history of man. As an example, one story has Jesus turn to Peter, the fumbling and bungling apostle is told by Jesus "Peter, upon this rock I shall build my church."

Some say that authorizes the structure of a church one with a head, king like. Nowhere though is there talk of 'God on earth" nor a militant, kill non-believers carbon copy of the government system that was adopted. The first Roman church was worse than Caligula and financed by Roman coffers.

Others, who have studied ancient Aramaic, in which it was likely spoken, and Ancient Greek in which the bible would have been written.

But here's the problem. "Rock" is not a word in Aramaic, there is a word for stone, or stones which could be anything from a pebble to a building block. Greek has several words for stone, including one that means stone or pebble. The learned scholars ten to agree that the word Jesus intended was "pebble", as it was Peter who was always worried he wasn't good enough who would be a part of the church.

Further, if you step back and read the NIV and examine how Jesus talks about His church, and the near misogynist rambling is completely different in style.


I have learned that when anyone takes one line out of the Bible and says it means this.....
I usually figure it's bull**** and study some more. I have also learned that you cannot parse anything in the Bible without knowing the context, social mores at the time and the reason that particular person is being spoken to is in there.

Some Christians see the story of the woman at the well as a scolding to a prostitute, but in truth he has singled her out as she "we [Samariians] have heard of you..." and tells her "now go, and tell them I have come."

She was the first appostle


So be careful.

PS, no one ever appointed Paul either and authority in the church nor an Apostle. My belief is that when the Romans threw away paganism they wanted a Roman her in the story
 
Last edited:
I don't think he acted as Christ (as literally taking the person of Christ) - he acted on His behalf.

That's actually the interpretation that I'm defending.

No, it doesn't.

You notice two things quite different? This was not a one-on-one as with a priest in a confessional. Everybody knew about the sin of the man, and everyone it seems had an input as to how he should be punished. Surely, the priest in the confessional doesn't talk to other church members about the confession of the sinner, nor does he asked parishioners what penalty ought to be meted?

Paul talked to the other members about it.

Actually historically this is how confession was done. The confessional came about centuries later.
 
Look at the passage IN CONTEXT:


Paul is clearly talking about forgiving people for personal offences, not forgiving their sins against God (see Matthew Chps. 18, 6; Eph Chp. 4; Mark Chp. 11; Luke Chps. 11, 17; Col Chp. 3)

Nothing in the context leads me to believe that he's only talking about interpersonal sin. Where do you see that implied?
 
Actually it's most commonly translated with the idea of being in the presence or before the face of. The word has it's roots in the Greek word for face (πρόσωπόν (prosōpon)), not in any of the multiple words used for "person".
Greek Concordance: ??????? (pros?p?) -- 7 Occurrences

See Wikipedia: "Prosopon originally meant "face" or "mask" in Greek and derives from Greek theatre, in which actors on a stage wore masks to reveal their character and emotional state to the audience."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosopon

This sounds a lot like what the priest does in the confessional. He acts in the role of Christ. He is not literally Christ, but he acts on His behalf, as we say in the Church: in persona Christi.
 
Every version has "flaws". You have to remember that there are three or more languages involved and any time you translate you risk changing something. This is one reason the Bible is the single most studied written work in the history of man. As an example, one story has Jesus turn to Peter, the fumbling and bungling apostle is told by Jesus "Peter, upon this rock I shall build my church."

Some say that authorizes the structure of a church one with a head, king like. Nowhere though is there talk of 'God on earth" nor a militant, kill non-believers carbon copy of the government system that was adopted. The first Roman church was worse than Caligula and financed by Roman coffers.

Others, who have studied ancient Aramaic, in which it was likely spoken, and Ancient Greek in which the bible would have been written.

But here's the problem. "Rock" is not a word in Aramaic, there is a word for stone, or stones which could be anything from a pebble to a building block. Greek has several words for stone, including one that means stone or pebble. The learned scholars ten to agree that the word Jesus intended was "pebble", as it was Peter who was always worried he wasn't good enough who would be a part of the church.

Further, if you step back and read the NIV and examine how Jesus talks about His church, and the near misogynist rambling is completely different in style.


I have learned that when anyone takes one line out of the Bible and says it means this.....
I usually figure it's bull**** and study some more. I have also learned that you cannot parse anything in the Bible without knowing the context, social mores at the time and the reason that particular person is being spoken to is in there.

What are you talking about? The Aramaic word for rock is kepha.

Some Christians see the story of the woman at the well as a scolding to a prostitute, but in truth he has singled her out as she "we [Samariians] have heard of you..." and tells her "now go, and tell them I have come."

She was the first appostle


So be careful.

She was no apostle. Don't make up stuff.

PS, no one ever appointed Paul either and authority in the church nor an Apostle. My belief is that when the Romans threw away paganism they wanted a Roman her in the story

Paul went to see Peter. Jesus appointed Paul as an authority.
 
Nothing in the context leads me to believe that he's only talking about interpersonal sin. Where do you see that implied?

It's not implied, it's clearly stated.

If anyone has caused grief, he has not so much grieved me as he has grieved all of you to some extent—not to put it too severely. The punishment inflicted on him by the majority is sufficient. Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort him, so that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. I urge you, therefore, to reaffirm your love for him. Another reason I wrote you was to see if you would stand the test and be obedient in everything. Anyone you forgive, I also forgive. And what I have forgiven—if there was anything to forgive—I have forgiven in the sight of Christ for your sake, in order that Satan might not outwit us. For we are not unaware of his schemes.

It's ALL about a personal affront and how the believers in Corinth should handle it. There's nothing in this passage that even remotely hints at sin against God, but rather it's about forgiving others when they sin against you. This entire letter is about how the believers in Corinth should be living their lives. It's about living under the New Covenant, about forgiveness, about repentance, about endurance, about being wise, about generosity. The whole letter is addressing living as a Christian, not about authority, but about how to live as a believer under the New Covenant. To assume that this way of translating that one word applies the way you are assuming that it does, means that this one passage is completely out of character with the rest of this letter.
 
It's not implied, it's clearly stated.



It's ALL about a personal affront and how the believers in Corinth should handle it. There's nothing in this passage that even remotely hints at sin against God, but rather it's about forgiving others when they sin against you. This entire letter is about how the believers in Corinth should be living their lives. It's about living under the New Covenant, about forgiveness, about repentance, about endurance, about being wise, about generosity. The whole letter is addressing living as a Christian, not about authority, but about how to live as a believer under the New Covenant. To assume that this way of translating that one word applies the way you are assuming that it does, means that this one passage is completely out of character with the rest of this letter.

Why wouldn't sin against God grieve believers?
 
See Wikipedia: "Prosopon originally meant "face" or "mask" in Greek and derives from Greek theatre, in which actors on a stage wore masks to reveal their character and emotional state to the audience."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosopon

This sounds a lot like what the priest does in the confessional. He acts in the role of Christ. He is not literally Christ, but he acts on His behalf, as we say in the Church: in persona Christi.

But this letter is ALL about living as a believer and not about authority. To assume your way of applying this word means that this passage is completely out of character with the rest of this letter. 2 Cor. is about Christian living, in fact, it's hands down the best book in the Bible to answer the question "How should a Christian act?" The way you're applying this word means that in the middle of a letter that is intended to show the church at Corinth how they should be living, Paul suddenly throws in a sentence that's about priestly authority.
 
But this letter is ALL about living as a believer and not about authority. To assume your way of applying this word means that this passage is completely out of character with the rest of this letter. 2 Cor. is about Christian living, in fact, it's hands down the best book in the Bible to answer the question "How should a Christian act?" The way you're applying this word means that in the middle of a letter that is intended to show the church at Corinth how they should be living, Paul suddenly throws in a sentence that's about priestly authority.

Why would he mention himself separately in the passage you provided if he didn't have any authority? Why can only he forgive in the person of Christ?
 
Some Christians see the story of the woman at the well as a scolding to a prostitute, but in truth he has singled her out as she "we [Samariians] have heard of you..." and tells her "now go, and tell them I have come."

She was the first appostle


So be careful.


I don't think she was the first apostle, and sent out to give that message. She did wonder, "could this be the Christ?" Here's the passage from NKJV



John 4
15 The woman said to Him, “Sir, give me this water, that I may not thirst, nor come here to draw.”

16 Jesus said to her, “Go, call your husband, and come here.”

17 The woman answered and said, “I have no husband.”

Jesus said to her, “You have well said, ‘I have no husband,’ 18 for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; in that you spoke truly.”

19 The woman said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. 20 Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship.”

21 Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

25 The woman said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming” (who is called Christ). “When He comes, He will tell us all things.”

26 Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am He.”


The Whitened Harvest

27 And at this point His disciples came, and they marveled that He talked with a woman; yet no one said, “What do You seek?” or, “Why are You talking with her?”

28 The woman then left her waterpot, went her way into the city, and said to the men, 29 “Come, see a Man who told me all things that I ever did.
Could this be the Christ?” 30 Then they went out of the city and came to Him.

31 In the meantime His disciples urged Him, saying, “Rabbi, eat.”

32 But He said to them, “I have food to eat of which you do not know.”

33 Therefore the disciples said to one another, “Has anyone brought Him anything to eat?”

34 Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work. 35 Do you not say, ‘There are still four months and then comes the harvest’? Behold, I say to you, lift up your eyes and look at the fields, for they are already white for harvest!




The title of that part is called "The Whitened Harvest"

"Harvest" is the subject. The "harvest" must refer to the Samaritan woman and the people in her village who came to see Jesus. They are ready to receive the gospel.
 
Last edited:
I contest that because if that was the case then why bring up the person of Christ at all? He could be forgiving on his own, no?

He could but he was witnessing as a Christian, i.e. authorized and strengthened by the Christ. He saw all called to be ministers, teachers, or to other vocations in the name of Christ to be acting for Christ, not AS Christ, but under his authority.
 
He could but he was witnessing as a Christian, i.e. authorized and strengthened by the Christ. He saw all called to be ministers, teachers, or to other vocations in the name of Christ to be acting for Christ, not AS Christ, but under his authority.

Of course not literally as Christ. But yes, by the authority imparted by Him.
 
Back
Top Bottom