Can anyone explain St. John 20:23?

[arunma]

I've passed this verse over several times before. But when doing a Bible study the other day, I was forced to actually deal with it. What does this mean?

If you forgive the sins of anyone, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld. (St. John 20:23)
​

It seems that in the Bible, a certain "authority" is given to the church. Christ also alluded to this in another Gospel.

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (St. Matthew 16:19)
​

What is the nature of this authority? I doubt that the forgiveness of our own sins is dependant on the authority of others (except for God), since it says,

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9)
​

and,

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)
​

So then, precisely what is the authority that God gives the church to bind or to loose, and to forgive or to withhold forgiveness? Anyone want to take a shot at it? Because I'm quite lost here.

 

[Flynmonkie]

My study bible states:St. John 20:23

This authority bestowed upon the apostles and others continued in force with other "gifts" till Acts 28, which records the final rejection of the Kingdom. To suppose that this "Church" of Eph 1 has any share in them is not rightly to divide the Word of Truth, but to introduce perplexity and confusion. See Mark 16:17, and Appendix 167

167. THE THREE COMMISSIONS.

It will be seen from Ap. 166 that there were three separate Commissions given to the Eleven Apostles, at different times, on distinctly specified occasions and in varying words.

The first is recorded in Luke 24:47. This was given in Jerusalem on the evening of the day of the resurrection. It was given, not to the Eleven only, but also to "them that were with them." (v. 33). The commission was the continuation of His own ministry and that of John the Baptist (Matt. 22:1-10). They were all to proclaim "repentance and remission of sins". The New Covenant had been made, in virtue of which this message of pardon could be declared. (Matt. 26:26-29. Mark 14:22-25. Luke 22:14-23. Acts 3:19), first in Jerusalem, and then to all nations. This was done by Peter (Acts 2:38; 3:19, &c.).

The second is recorded in Mark 16:15-18, and was given when the Lord appeared to the Eleven as they sat at meat; and it was carried out by "them that heard Him", as foretold in Matt. 22:4-7, and fulfilled in Mark 16:20, as confirmed in Heb. 2:3, 4. The Acts of the Apostles is the inspired history of the fulfillment of this commission, so far as it is necessary for our instruction. It was given for the personal ministry of the Apostles, to be fulfilled by them before the destruction of the Temple and of Jerusalem.

The third is recorded in Matt. 28:19, 20, and was given on a mountain in Galilee (Ap. 169). It was the proclamation of the King, who had left Jerusalem, according to the Parable (Luke 19:12), until He returns in power to set up His kingdom (26:64). It is the summons to the Gentile nations to submit to the Lord Jesus, as the King of Israel, according to Ps. 2:10-12. It is the proclamation of "the Gospel of the Kingdom" (Ap. 140. II) for a witness to all nations, immediately before the end of the age (Matt. 24:14. Rev. 14:6). It is still wholly future in its application, and proclaims the judgment on the Gentiles for the final deliverance of Israel, according to Ps. 2:9, when verse 6 shall be fulfilled.
Taken from http://www.angelfire.com/nv/TheOliveBranch/append167.html

 

[FreeinChrist]

I like the way Jamieson, Fausett and Brown put it:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1149567214-7074.html

23. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, &c.--In any literal and authoritative sense this power was never exercised by one of the apostles, and plainly was never understood by themselves as possessed by them or conveyed to them. (See on JF & B for Mt 16:19). The power to intrude upon the relation between men and God cannot have been given by Christ to His ministers in any but a ministerial or declarative sense--as the authorized interpreters of His word, while in the actings of His ministers, the real nature of the power committed to them is seen in the exercise of church discipline.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Matthew Henry has ( I added the bold):
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/mhc/Jhn/Jhn020.html

5.) One particular branch of the power given them by their commission particularized (v. 23): "Whosesoever sins you remit, in the due execution of the powers you are entrusted with, they are remitted to them, and they may take the comfort of it; and whosesoever sins you retain, that is, pronounce unpardoned and the guilt of them bound on, they are retained, and the sinner may be sure of it, to his sorrow.’’ Now this follows upon their receiving the Holy Ghost; for, if they had not had an extraordinary spirit of discerning, they had not been fit to be entrusted with such an authority; for, in the strictest sense, this is a special commission to the apostles themselves and the first preachers of the gospel, who could distinguish who were in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity, and who were not. By virtue of this power, Peter struck Ananias and Sapphira dead, and Paul struck Elymas blind. Yet it must be understood as a general charter to the church and her ministers, not securing an infallibility of judgment to any man or company of men in the world, but encouraging the faithful stewards of the mysteries of God to stand to the gospel they were sent to preach, for that God himself will stand to it. The apostles, in preaching remission, must begin at Jerusalem, though she had lately brought upon herself the guilt of Christ’s blood: "Yet you may declare their sins remitted upon gospel terms.’’ And Peter did so, Acts 2:38; 3:19. Christ, being risen for our justification, sends his gospel heralds to proclaim the jubilee begun, the act of indemnity now passed; and by this rule men shall be judged, ch. 12:48; Rom. 2:16; Jam. 2:12. God will never alter this rule of judgment, nor vary from it; those whom the gospel acquits shall be acquitted, and those whom the gospel condemns shall be condemned, which puts immense honour upon the ministry, and should put immense courage into ministers. Two ways the apostles and ministers of Christ remit and retain sin, and both as having authority:—[1.] By sound doctrine. They are commissioned to tell the world that salvation is to be had upon gospel terms, and no other, and they shall find God will say Amen to it; so shall their doom be. [2.] By a strict discipline, applying the general rule of the gospel to particular persons. "Whom you admit into communion with you, according to the rules of the gospel, God will admit into communion with himself; and whom you cast out of communion as impenitent, and obstinate in scandalous and infectious sins, shall be bound over to the righteous judgment of

 

[aReformedPatriot]

If you will permit, Arunma, I will simply copy what is written in the New American Commentary by Gerald Borchert

20:23 This verse focuses on the commission of the risen Jesus concerning the forgicing and retaining of sins. As a result it has also been the subjet of considerable debate. At the outset it should be emphasized that the overall contextual framework undoubtedly involves followers ot Jesus in their mission and evengelistic task within the hostile world. Forgivness of sins is directed to a right relation or standing with God, a concern that in Pauline letters would be called to justification, as for example in Rom 3:21-5:11/ Accordingly, it is imperative to recognize that while Christians are involeved in mission, it is God who ultimately does the forgiving.

Christians who are thus involved in the forgivness of sins do so as agents of the Holy Spirit and never as independent actors in this process. It is equally importnt to recognize that the Gospel of John, like the first epistle, is addressed to the Church (the Christian Community) and not simply to individuals. Moreover, it is extremely difficult to agree with R. Brown when he said that "the power to absolve and to hold men's sins is explicitly given to (ten of ) the twelve in 20:23"[69]/ Morris is quite correct when he says he finds no evidence for such a limitation to the ten.[70].

Now the concept of forgivness and retention of sins is not unrealted to the binding and loosing texts of Matt 16:19; 18:18, which must be understood in the context of rabbinc legal thought as the obligation to communitcate correctly the requirments of the law so that those who are obedient to God's will would be accepted, and those who are disobedient would be judged. The obligation on the part of the rabbis was very weighty because the people's well-being was clearly at stake. But to carry the point further, the terms are patently legal terms that also relate to a judge's task of discerning legitimacy or illegitimacy of given patterns of behavior. The semitic style of stating issues in clearly defined opposites is evident in both Johannine and Matthean texts.[71].

Thus one could say that Jesus' followers are to make the Gospel so clear that it is evident where people stand on the nature of sin. When these texts re understood in this perspective, it should become clear that Jesus' commission to his followers is not one of priileged judgement but og weihty responsibility to represent the will of God in Christ with Extreme faithfulness and to be honest nd authentic about their evaluations or judgements.

With these basic remarks in mind, several comments can be made. It is obvious that this verse contains a two=sided condition. The use of the perfect tenses in the two apodoses (concluding parts of the conditions) have essentially the same meaning as the present and future.[72]. Thus the argument of J. Mantey that these perfects were simply to be understood as past events and his thesis that the variant readings in the present and future were wrongly concieved. [73].

Moeover, the focus is, as Barclay notes, "not on giving individuals the power to forgive sins" ut rather on the church's duty "to proclaim that forgivness" and "to warn the impentinent that they are forfeiting the mercy of God."[74]. From these verses the Roman Catholic church develped the sacrament of penance from which most Protestants shrink in horror.[75]. In spite of such revulsion on the part of Protestants to the sacramental nature of penance, however, there needs to be a recognition of the significant role that declaration of forgivness can have in freeing people to set aside their past sins and feelings of guilt and turn their attention to the joy of living with the risen Christ under the direction of the Holy Spirit.

The New American Commentary: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture. John 12-21

And there you have it.

Thoughts, if any?

EDIT: I am not a skilled typist so forgive the errors.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I believe that the Roman Catholic Church has a more accurate view of John 20:23 than do most Protestants. That view is the foundation of their doctrine of the Sacrament of Penance, a doctrine that many Protestants believe to be repugnant. It is also in agreement with the view of the Ante-Nicene Church that sins were forgiven through water baptism, a sacrament that was performed only by the leaders of the Church.

There are, however, textual variants and grammatical issues in the Greek text of this verse worthy of consideration and discussion, and the two volume commentary on the Gospel According to John written by Raymond E. Brown, an American Roman Catholic scholar, in the Anchor Bible Series (vols. 29 & 29A) has the best discussion of these detailed matters found in any work of which I am aware that is readily available to anyone with access to a good seminary or university library. Father Brown, although Roman Catholic through and through, was a gifted writer and speaker who even preached in Baptist churches on occasion.

The three volume commentary on the Gospel According to John written by Rudolf Schnackenburg, a European Roman Catholic scholar, includes a good discussion of historical and theological matters pertaining to this verse. It is a very expensive work, and not as easy to find as that of Raymond Brown.

The prevailing Protestant view that only the authority to proclaim the gospel is spoken of in this text is, in my view, totally inadequate.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

If you will permit, Arunma, I will simply copy what is written in the New American Commentary by Gerald Borchert

It is VERY important to note that Gerald Borchert's work is a very recent work (2002) and that it is copyrighted!

 

[ZiSunka]

If you forgive the sins of anyone, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld. (St. John 20:23)

If I hold a grudge against you and refuse to forgive you, then God doesn't let go of that sin until I change my mind and forgive it. It doesn't give authority to any church, it is a reminder to the Believer that his/her grudges hurt people.

If we forgive, the person who sinned against us is forgiven and God acknowledges that in heaven--debt cancelled, entry removed from the ledger. If we refuse to forgive someone, our sins are not forgiven, and the debt we owe is NOT forgiven. So our grudges hurt us, too!

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

I've passed this verse over several times before. But when doing a Bible study the other day, I was forced to actually deal with it. What does this mean?

If you forgive the sins of anyone, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld. (St. John 20:23)
​

It seems that in the Bible, a certain "authority" is given to the church. Christ also alluded to this in another Gospel.

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (St. Matthew 16:19)
​

What is the nature of this authority? I doubt that the forgiveness of our own sins is dependant on the authority of others (except for God), since it says,

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9)
​

and,

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)
​

So then, precisely what is the authority that God gives the church to bind or to loose, and to forgive or to withhold forgiveness? Anyone want to take a shot at it? Because I'm quite lost here.

Since everyone else is posting commentary...

20:23 See notes on Matt. 16:19; 18:18. This verse does not give authority to Christians to forgive sins. Jesus was saying that the believer can boldly declare the certainty of a sinner’s forgiveness by the Father because of the work of His Son if that sinner has repented and believed the gospel. The believer with certainty can also tell those who do not respond to the message of God’s forgiveness through faith in Christ that their sins, as a result, are not forgiven.http://www.christianforums.com/#_ftn1 http://www.christianforums.com/#_ftnref1MacArthur, J. J. 1997, c1997. The MacArthur Study Bible (electronic ed.) . Word Pub.: Nashville

 

[Flynmonkie]

I posted a commentary because I had not ever thought of this question! And THAT is what I found, clear as mud! I think that that "we", the believers are the church. I think this would apply individually to each of us. In application of our own personal walks. (such as what Lambslove has posted)

If you think about it, if you forgive someone the weight that is lifted from your shoulders, establishing that trust or "contract" with God that He will take care of it (vengeance is mine) and allowing Him to do so (giving up that "right" or at least acknowledging that it is not really your right)

So the authority is based solely on our own sanctification process.

I am a bit confused though, your aren’t confusing salvation (cleansing of sin) with forgiveness of others. IOW the thought that we have the ability to "cleanse" others sins?

 

[PrincetonGuy]

John MacArthur would be believable if the Apostle John wrote what MacArthur says he wrote, but the Apostle John wrote what he wrote:

John 20:23. ἄν τινων ἀφῆτε τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἀφέωνται αὐτοῖς ἄν τινων κρατῆτε κεκράτηνται

John 20:23. "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained." (NASB, 1995)

John MacArthur is here simply parroting what many other Protestants have said without carefully reading the text before them, and by that I mean the Greek text.

ἄν τινων ἀφῆτε (If you forgive) an aorist subjunctive

ἄν τινων κρατῆτε (if you retain) a present subjunctive

Regarding this observation, Raymond E. Brown correctly writes, “The aorist implies an act in a moment brings forgiveness, whereas the present implies that the state of holding or refusing forgiveness continues.”

The tense of the verb in the phrase, “have been forgiven them” varies from one ancient Greek manuscript to another. The best manuscripts have the perfect passive, as interpretively translated above in the NASB, but the Greek future and present passives are also found in some manuscripts. J. R. Mantey writes that the perfect tense implies past action, but, as H. J. Cadbury wrote [Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 58 (1939), pp 252-254], this does not apply to conditional sentences. And Raymond Brown writes in his commentary on this verse, “A perfect tense used in the apodosis of a general condition does not necessarily refer to action that is prior to the protasis; rather such a perfect can have a future reference.”

I believe that John 20:23 needs to be taken at face value without reading anti-Catholic Protestant theology into it. From the Apostle John’s perspective, the Church is the Body of Christ and has the authority of Christ to forgive or retain sins. Being a Christian is not just being polite at football games—being a Christian is allowing Christ to carry on His ministry through us.

 

[karen72201]

This verse gives the Catholic Church part of its authority and affirms its teachings.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

John MacArthur would be believable if the Apostle John wrote what MacArthur says he wrote, but the Apostle John wrote what he wrote:

John 20:23. ἄν τινων ἀφῆτε τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἀφέωνται αὐτοῖς ἄν τινων κρατῆτε κεκράτηνται

John 20:23. "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained." (NASB, 1995)

John MacArthur is here simply parroting what many other Protestants have said without carefully reading the text before them, and by that I mean the Greek text.

ἄν τινων ἀφῆτε (If you forgive) an aorist subjunctive

ἄν τινων κρατῆτε (if you retain) a present subjunctive

Regarding this observation, Raymond E. Brown correctly writes, “The aorist implies an act in a moment brings forgiveness, whereas the present implies that the state of holding or refusing forgiveness continues.”

The tense of the verb in the phrase, “have been forgiven them” varies from one ancient Greek manuscript to another. The best manuscripts have the perfect passive, as interpretively translated above in the NASB, but the Greek future and present passives are also found in some manuscripts. J. R. Mantey writes that the perfect tense implies past action, but, as H. J. Cadbury wrote [Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 58 (1939), pp 252-254], this does not apply to conditional sentences. And Raymond Brown writes in his commentary on this verse, “A perfect tense used in the apodosis of a general condition does not necessarily refer to action that is prior to the protasis; rather such a perfect can have a future reference.”

I believe that John 20:23 needs to be taken at face value without reading anti-Catholic Protestant theology into it. From the Apostle John’s perspective, the Church is the Body of Christ and has the authority of Christ to forgive or retain sins. Being a Christian is not just being polite at football games—being a Christian is allowing Christ to carry on His ministry through us.

I'm sorry to correct your mistake but John isn't just parroting others. I might be parroting him here just for the sake of time but that's another story.

John knows his Greek and I'm learning Greek so since you know so much perhaps you'll give me free lessons? Anyways, here is some more commentary for you since my first post showed that there are other verses that have commentary that he thought we should read.

Matthew 16:19 the keys of the kingdom of heaven. These represent authority, and here Christ gives Peter (and by extension all other believers) authority to declare what was bound or loosed in heaven. This echoed the promise of John 20:23, where Christ gave the disciples authority to forgive or retain the sins of people. All this must be understood in the context of 18:15–17, where Christ laid out specific instructions for dealing with sin in the church (see note on 18:15). The sum of it all means that any duly constituted body of believers, acting in accord with God’s Word, has the authority to declare if someone is forgiven or unforgiven. The church’s authority is not to determine these things, but to declare the judgment of heaven based on the principles of the Word. When they make such judgments on the basis of God’s Word, they can be sure heaven is in accord. In other words, whatever they “bind” or “loose” on earth is already “bound” or “loosed” in heaven. When the church says the unrepentant person is bound in sin, the church is saying what God says about that person. When the church acknowledges that a repentant person has been loosed from that sin, God agrees.http://www.christianforums.com/#_ftn1 http://www.christianforums.com/#_ftnref1MacArthur, J. J. 1997, c1997. The MacArthur Study Bible (electronic ed.) . Word Pub.: Nashville

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I'm sorry to correct your mistake but John isn't just parroting others. I might be parroting him here just for the sake of time but that's another story.

John knows his Greek and I'm learning Greek so since you know so much perhaps you'll give me free lessons? Anyways, here is some more commentary for you since my first post showed that there are other verses that have commentary that he thought we should read.

I have never seen John McArthur write anything at all that showed any evidence of original thought. In this particular case, based upon my knowledge of the Greek New Testament and historical New Testament theology, I am absolutely certain that John McArthur is radically missing what Jesus taught. I am not at all certain that my interpretation is correct, even though it is very well supported by the Greek text and historical New Testament theology, but the interpretation given by John McArthur and many who have preceded, him, in my opinion, does violence to the Greek text and is a crystal clear example of reading one’s post-reformation theological bias into the words of Jesus.

As for the theological positions held by John McArthur, I would encourage you to very carefully and prayerfully study the rebuttal of them by his critics. He is in a small minority in several very important areas, and although that does not necessarily mean that he is incorrect, it should raise some red flags in the minds of his readers and cause them to very carefully and prayerfully study the issues for themselves.

 

[MrJim]

I have never seen John McArthur write anything at all that showed any evidence of original thought.

 

[Flynmonkie]

I have never seen John McArthur write anything at all that showed any evidence of original thought.

HEEEEEYYYYYYYYYY, back off buddy! I happen to like John MacAurthur! Quite a bit! however he can tend to lean toward a legalistic perspective at times but who doesn't! Adn I have to agree with you some of the things I have read, it seems I can tell the difference of what he "thinks" and what he has "heard." BUT --He gave me (and does others) good milk in my early walk soo…

you just leave good ‘ole John alone, he has great stuff for babes that are a ‘learnin!

 

[MrJim]

HEEEEEYYYYYYYYYY, back off buddy! I happen to like John MacAurthur! Quite a bit! however he can tend to lean toward a legalistic perspective at times but who doesn't! Adn I have to agree with you some of the things I have read, it seems I can tell the difference of what he "thinks" and what he has "heard." BUT --He gave me (and does others) good milk in my early walk soo…

you just leave good ‘ole John alone, he has great stuff for babes that are a ‘learnin!

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

I have never seen John McArthur write anything at all that showed any evidence of original thought. In this particular case, based upon my knowledge of the Greek New Testament and historical New Testament theology, I am absolutely certain that John McArthur is radically missing what Jesus taught. I am not at all certain that my interpretation is correct, even though it is very well supported by the Greek text and historical New Testament theology, but the interpretation given by John McArthur and many who have preceded, him, in my opinion, does violence to the Greek text and is a crystal clear example of reading one’s post-reformation theological bias into the words of Jesus.

As for the theological positions held by John McArthur, I would encourage you to very carefully and prayerfully study the rebuttal of them by his critics. He is in a small minority in several very important areas, and although that does not necessarily mean that he is incorrect, it should raise some red flags in the minds of his readers and cause them to very carefully and prayerfully study the issues for themselves.

Then you have read very little of what John has written. I have listened to countless of his sermons. I have read several of his books. I have met the man in person and have heard him do a few seminars in person. I have been in Bible studies using his commentary series for guidance. I have talked to a guy that works for his ministry. The man is a great blessing of God to countless of Christians. The guy is a great thinker and doesn't just steal the ideas of others. Of course if you think about it no one probably has an original idea. That includes you and I!

By the way I take it you not going to help me learn Greek?

 

[Flynmonkie]

Oh yeah, I figured that would throw you into hysterics..


Hey we could look at it this way, someone could have quoted that Binny Hinn character...... Menno would LOVE to see more of that!

 

[holdon]

From "Present, Eternal and Governmental forgiveness of sins." by J.N. Darby:​

There is only another passage, which it may be well to refer to, John 20: 23. The Lord, after He was risen, comes amongst His disciples and communicates to them the peace He had just made, and sends them out to preach that peace to others while He has gone away into heaven. In thus sending them out as His Father had sent Him, He conferred on them apostolic authority, so that they should administer this remission and forgiveness of sins to all those who believed, who became Christians. Thus when the Jews, convinced of their sin in rejecting Christ, said, thinking all was over through their rejecting Him, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Peter replies, "Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Thus becoming Christians through his ministry they received the perfect remission which Christ obtained for them.​

So in Acts 10: 43; only there, as Peter himself had great difficulty in receiving any who believed from among the heathen, God gave them a testimony, as Peter says afterwards, before they were received, so that men could not refuse to receive them. So Paul gives the same testimony; Acts 13: 38, 39.​

And to this day, if a heathen believes in Christ and becomes a Christian by baptism, he then receives full remission of sins. Only the apostles could do it, with not only personal authority, but discernment as to the reality of the faith of those who came; Acts 8: 28, 29. The general truth remains sure, "By him all that believe are justified from all things."​

The same governmental forgiveness remains true, too, with the same difference. Peter does not pray for Ananias and Sapphira: it was a sin unto death, and they fell dead. So Paul (1 Cor. 5: 3-5) judged to "deliver such an one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh." There was apostolic discernment, authority and power. Then all were called on too to act on their responsibility as the assembly of God (vv. 12, 13), and Paul associates them with him in this act of power.​

365 In this sense the apostles had no successors. There were local authorities, elders, deacons, etc., but apostles were apostles, and did this with Christ's authority everywhere, only Peter specially among the Jews, and Paul among the Gentiles; Gal. 2: 7, 8. As such, even the greatest authorities among the Roman Catholics admit they had no successors.​

But there is a succession owned of God, whose authority flows from Christ where His presence is realised in lowly grace. In Matthew 18: 18, if a person were wronged, he was to speak to the wrong-doer, and win him if he could; if he could not, to take two or three more; if this did not succeed, he was to tell it — not to the clergy, not to any priest, but — to the assembly. If the wrong-doer would not listen to the assembly, the person was free to treat him as outside it — as a heathen man and a publican. And the reason is given: that wherever two or three were gathered together in Christ's name, really met and looking to Him, so as to act really and humbly in His name, He being there according to this promise, the act would have in ordinary church discipline (as "putting out from among yourselves") Christ's authority, and He would own and sanction it.​

It is not individual apostolic power (Peter and Paul both announce these would not be after their decease, Acts 20: 29-33) acting in Christ's name as Peter could, saying, "Jesus Christ maketh thee whole," or Paul delivering to Satan, but an act within the limits of duty, presented by the word, and which Christ sanctions by His presence and authority, acting in the midst of two or three. This supposes they are in unity, really gathered to Christ's name, and truly looking to Him by the Spirit, as the only One who can exercise this authority, and taking His word for their guide. It is this that in the word of God takes the place (I do not say of apostolic power, for it is not individual, but) of apostolic authority, because it is Christ who really acts.​

http://www.stempublishing.com/authors/darby/DOCTRINE/31025E.html​