This is part 4 of a series on forgiveness. See the index here.
In the last part of the series, you may have missed something that I said:
When you pray the Lord’s Prayer, you are asking for a Jubilee, a remittance or cancelation of your debt. You are asking that your debts—your sins—be vacated without respect to merit. Notably, you have done nothing to deserve forgiveness. Not even repentance can eliminate a sin-debt.
For those who believe that forgiveness is conditional, they believe that the condition required for forgiveness is repentance: the sinner must first repent of their sin against another before the debt-holder is required to forgive. But where does this principle come from? Where in scripture is repentance required for forgiveness?
Here is the most “obvious” answer:
It seems rather clear: if he repents, forgive him. If he doesn’t repent, you don’t have to forgive him. End of discussion, right?
Well, not really. Pay close attention. There is something there that you may not have ever noticed before.
But, first, let’s go back to one commenter’s claim:
Biblical repentance isn’t just words either, it is a demonstrated change.
The biblical word ‘repent‘ means a demonstrated change. But, in fact, the brother’s repentance was precisely just words:
And if he sins against you seven times in the day, and seven times returns to you saying, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.
In this example, the brother merely said he repented, but he didn’t actually repent. He lapsed, having failed to demonstrate any change at all. Yet, despite him sinning as many as seven times in just one daytime alone, and even though each time he said he would repent and didn’t, Jesus instructed that he be forgiven anyway.
Those who cite this passage as evidence that repentance is required are completely missing the point: the expressed repentance by the brother was not demonstrated. The meaning of repentance is unambiguous, and this wasn’t it. Yet, forgiveness was extended anyway, over and over again, in the absence of true repentance.
Jesus wants us to forgive our brother, even if he lies about repenting. Actual repentance is not required.
As an aside, the passage in Luke is referencing the Jewish tradition that one had to forgive their brother up to seven times in a single sunrise-to-sunset daytime. In the parallel account in Matthew 18, Jesus says that this should be seventy times seven.
For even the most literalistic, pedantic, mathematically obsessed reader, a brother or sister would still have to constantly sin against you at a rate of more than once every 90 seconds over a 12-hour period to “run out” of forgiveness. The idea that forgiveness is limited—let alone conditional on real meaningful repentance—is clearly absurd. After all, even if your wife was the only town whore, she still couldn’t sin against you that quickly. Although, to be fair, the world record is (currently) 1,057 men in 12 hours.
In any case, at the end of the day, repentance or not, the slate must be wiped anew:
Do not let the sun go down on your angry mood, and do not give an opportunity to the Devil!
Here is why:
Sacrifice the sacrifices of righteousness, and trust in Yahweh.
Many are saying, “Who will show us good?” O Yahweh, lift up upon us the light of your face.
You have placed joy in my heart; more joy than the season when their grain and new wine abound.
In peace I will both lie down and sleep, for you alone, Yahweh, make me live in safety.
In your anger, do not ask for more than God’s favor and for joy to be placed on your heart in place of anger and the desire for vengeance. Go into the next day with peace. Trust God. Leave vengeance to him.
Do not let your anger over another’s sin against you last past the very day it occurred, lest you be consumed by anger, hatred, and despair. Find peace quickly!
Now, let’s go back to the primary topic of this post by looking at what I said earlier:
One of the reasons that Jesus talked about sin in terms of financial and material debt is to keep the concept concrete and practical. It’s easy for us to spiritualize and abstract away sin. But Jesus didn’t do that. He had a clear sense of the sin as debt involving both a debtor and a debt-holder (or creditor). The debt-holder had the right to call in the debt and seek legal action against the debtor.
Nowhere in the Law could a debt be cleared simply because someone agreed not to do it again. That is not the function of repentance, no matter how sincere it is. Forgiveness means cancelling debt already owed, while repentance means not acruing additional debt. That is why the New Testament preaches both, but it also teaches that all are sinners and that no one can truly live a sin-free life. That is why forgiveness trumps repentance and why you cannot have the latter without the former.
Let’s say you borrow a large sum from the bankers, but can not pay it back. The bank holds the debt against you and it has a right to collect. In what way could your agreement not to borrow more money resolve you of your financial obligation?
Let’s say that a wife commits adultery. Now her husband holds a sin-debt against her. Let’s say that she, with all her heart and mind, with sincere regret and remorse, understands and agrees that she must never do this again. In what way could her agreement not to do it again impact the sin-debt of what she actually did? How could it erase the damage that she did?
The Law of Moses taught that one must confess their sin (Leviticus 5:5), bring a sacrifice (Leviticus 5:6), and—possibly—make restitution (Leviticus 6:1–7). The sacrifice and the restitution were repayments for the debt, not cancellations. The sacrificial system itself did not provide true forgiveness. The New Testament confirms this:
For since the law has only a shadow of the good things to come, not the true form of the things, it is never able, by the same sacrifices that they offer continually year after year, to make those who draw near perfect. Otherwise, would they not have stopped offering those sacrifices? Because the ones who serve, having been once cleansed, would have had no more consciousness of sins.
But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year after year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
The ritual act of cleansing was a covering over of sin, but it did not take them away. Sin was concealed, but not removed. Sacrifices could not perfect a man. That is why each new sacrifice was a reminder of sins year after year.
All its fat he is to take from it and burn it into smoke on the altar. And he is to do with the bull as he did with the bull for the sin offering; he is to do the same with this. Thus the priest will make atonement [cover over] for them, and they will be forgiven.
In the Old Testament, atonement or covering—and thus forgiveness—required a priest, a mediator. But it did not vacate the sin. Despite being forgiven, access to God was still restricted. Only the High Priest had access to the Most Holy Place, and only then just once per year.
This is not what we would call true forgiveness. It was a reconciliation, but not a full restoration. It is not what Jesus taught about forgiveness.
There is no question that the Bible commands that we repent of our sins. But forgiveness is not dependent on repentance. That’s why lapsing—the failure to repent even after the confession of sin—is itself a sin subject to unconditional forgiveness. If repentance could save, then there would be no need for forgiveness. But repentance is utterly powerless to remove your sin-debt.
But, first, let’s go back to one commenter’s claim:
Comment
Biblical repentance isn’t just words either, it is a demonstrated change.
The biblical word ‘repent‘ means a demonstrated change. But, in fact, the brother’s repentance was precisely just words:
Luke 17:4
And if he sins against you seven times in the day, and seven times returns to you saying, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.
In this example, the brother merely said he repented, but he didn’t actually repent. He lapsed, having failed to demonstrate any change at all. Yet, despite him sinning as many as seven times in just one daytime alone, and even though each time he said he would repent and didn’t, Jesus instructed that he be forgiven anyway.
Those who cite this passage as evidence that repentance is required are completely missing the point: the expressed repentance by the brother was not demonstrated. The meaning of repentance is unambiguous, and this wasn’t it. Yet, forgiveness was extended anyway, over and over again, in the absence of true repentance.
Jesus wants us to forgive our brother, even if he lies about repenting. Actual repentance is not required.
Pay close attention. There is something there that you may not have ever noticed before.
What about Tertullian’s
Why don’t modern Christians ever ask themselves ”What were all the non-Christians seeing in the early Christians that made them want to be a Christian too(even to the point of death)?”
Notice it was later that people were forced to be Christians but in the very early years what were people seeing with their very own eyes & hearing with their ears?
Anwser:
Many members of the early church were not afraid to suffer and die. Those who declined to die for Christ, but conformed to the pagan worship instead to save their lives, were called The Lapsed.
I’m reminded of the quote my son gave the other day:
This is all very fine and beautiful, but how then shall we live? When my contractor rips me off, shall I just pay him more money to do nothing? And that’s before we even get to rapists, torturers, and murderers. Shall we pat them on the head and say, “aw, that’s ok?” When I was a Quaker, I knew people who thought precisely that, that Christianity was basically a suicide pact. I’ve survived enough violent crime to have been forced to the conclusion that forgiveness means wanting my assailants in prison for life but in heaven for eternity, but even at that … God Himself will not have them in heaven if they continue to behave the way they have on earth.
Bear in mind that the Quaker teaching on pacifism is not the same as the Anabaptist teaching on nonresistence. We may have lived and worshiped together in Germantown, but that didn’t mean our doctrines were identical.
Anabaptists—especially Mennonites—teach that we “resist” evil by doing good. Evil can only be overcome through numerous possible positive responses.
Why, do you think, could negative responses be necessary or even possible? Do you believe Jesus when he instructed you not to resist with violence? Do you believe the Bible regarding the positive effects of not fighting back but doing Good instead?
It is true that many (most?) Christians do not. They rationalize why Jesus must have been wrong, just as you are doing here:
You must live by faith!
Forgiveness is the cancellation of a sin-debt for a sin that has already occurred. If you want to avoid things like crime and such from occurring in the first place, you can make certain decisions in life to avoid those situations where forgiveness is required. Forgiveness does not imply passivity.
But be aware that the avoidance of suffering is not an inherently Godly endeavor. Self-defense of any kind (including the avoidance of suffering) is still wrong if it is not God’s will for your life. If his purpose is for you to suffer, you must accept that.
One of the things Bruce Charlton writes about is how modern man treats suffering differently from how historical man viewed it. Wealth and prosperity were, if anything, once considered to be impediments to the divine by almost every Christian, while suffering was the mark of the holy man. But moderns have inverted this: they view the end of suffering as the sole purpose of life.
(See the article “On Suffering” and the comments here, here, and especially here and here)
I read your words here…
…and see that you don’t understand suffering to be good: you see it as something that should be avoided or prevented. Do you love your life so much that you are unwilling to lose it for Christ’s sake?
But let’s stick to the key issue at hand.
The violence against you that you’ve described is utterly insignificant in the light of the crimes you’ve committed against God. If they deserve life in prison, then you deserve an eternity in prison.
In the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant, Jesus let us know that his offer to forgive of our debt—analogized to an outrageously large 60 million days of wages loan—is predicated on us forgiving the far less difficult debt—analogized to a 100 days of wages loan—against our brother. If we cannot forgive the far lesser debt here on Earth, God will not forgive us for the far greater debt in Heaven.
To put this into terms we can easily understand, suppose your owed someone $3,000,000 in gambling debt, but they mercifully agreed not to collect on this debt. Now, imagine you then turned around and demanded that a brother immediately pay you the $5 you loaned them for a cup of coffee. And, when he didn’t have the money, you sent a bruiser over to break his arms and legs and to rape his wife. That’s how absurd it is to refuse to forgive your brother for their sins against you after God has forgiven you.
Those who do not forgive their brothers are sent by God to the debtors prison (i.e. Hell) where they will be subject to the torturers.
What you’ve described here is that you do not want to offer a lesser forgiveness to your fellow man, even though God has offered you much greater forgiveness. You don’t want what God has to offer.
This requires repentance. If you persist in denying the power of the Holy Spirit to save those who sin against you, then you deny the Holy Spirit’s power to save yourself.
As I’ll discuss in tomorrow’s post, salvation is not dependent on one’s ability to cease sinning, for no one would be saved if that were the case. You’d never have to forgive anyone, because no one alive is capable of full repentance. Nor does the size, scale, severity, or category of the sin to be forgiven matter. Only denying the power of the Holy Spirit by denying the power to save is unforgivable without repentance. All other sins can be forgiven even if one does not repent. But not rejecting the Holy Spirit’s power.
i wonder if a certain dead text-based sphere is going to take credit for this.:https://www.reddit.com/r/GenZ/comments/1jyxywn/why_are_gen_z_men_experiencing_a_religious_revival/
r/GenZ icon
Go to GenZ
r/GenZ
•
13 hr. ago
collegetest35
Why are Gen Z Men Experiencing a Religious Revival ?
Discussion
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/23/us/young-men-religion-gen-z.html
Traditionally women were slightly more religious than men. This isn’t true for Gen Z, where the number of religious men outnumber the number of religious women.
ExcitingTabletop
•
13h ago
They’re likely looking for meaning or purpose in their life.
Same reason why people do anything.
Upvote
Vote
Downvote
Award
[deleted]
•
13h ago
[deleted]
•
12h ago
MarkPellicle
•
13h ago
Exactly this. Having a community and a place to fellowship in a world that offers none for those that follow a secular path. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with religion, but I do think that many churches abuse their protected status. This leads to corruption within church leadership, which leads to victimizing its parishioners.
So GBFMS prophecy of ”Churchians have no shame and deserve every divorce/broken marriage they get. Their failed gamey crusade shall soon be forgotten, while the Christ and Moses they castigated, ignored, belittled, censored, and impugned shall Rise Again and Serve the Rising Generation who honors the Law of Moses and our Lord Jesus Christ over gamey game and gina tiznzgzlzlozozozo.
“Those who live by the tingzlzozozozozl shall die by the tingzlzlzozozlzoz” -GBFM”
From December 29, 2013 / 2:52 pm, has come true!
But now i ,like MOD, i’ am wondering how long it will take for ”REAL MAN”® wannabes to start pushing them out of the church for crimes against their churchian church phariseeical standards as heard in this video:
:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkaeAkJO0w8
Mark Driscoll Screaming How Dare You
ALL the ”good MEN” in church will NOT kick the young MEN out again as GREAT MEN like GBFM, DEREK & MOD, will be everywhere as were ALL one body in CHRIST(I Corinthians 12:12-27). Wherever you can look – wherever there’s a fight, so hungry people can eat, WE’ll be there. Wherever there’s a churchian ”REAL MAN”® wannabe beatin’ up a guy, WE’ll be there. WE’ll be in the way guys yell when they’re mad. WE’ll be in the way kids laugh when they’re hungry and they know supper’s ready, and when the people are eatin’ the stuff they raise and livin’ in the houses they build – WE’ll be there, too
ALSO, 1 Corinthians 12 infull to show another parallel:
The Use of Spiritual Gifts
12 Now about the spiritual gifts [the special endowments given by the Holy Spirit], brothers and sisters, I do not want you to be uninformed. 2 You know that when you were pagans, you were led off after speechless idols; however you were led off [whether by impulse or habit]. 3 Therefore I want you to know that no one speaking by the [power and influence of the] Spirit of God can say, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is [my] Lord,” except by [the power and influence of] the Holy Spirit.
4 Now there are [distinctive] varieties of spiritual gifts [special abilities given by the grace and extraordinary power of the Holy Spirit operating in believers], but it is the same Spirit [who grants them and empowers believers]. 5 And there are [distinctive] varieties of ministries and service, but it is the same Lord [who is served]. 6 And there are [distinctive] ways of working [to accomplish things], but it is the same God who produces all things in all believers [inspiring, energizing, and empowering them]. 7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit [the spiritual illumination and the enabling of the Holy Spirit] for the common good. 8 To one is given through the [Holy] Spirit [the power to speak] the message of wisdom, and to another [the power to express] the word of knowledge and understanding according to the same Spirit; 9 to another [wonder-working] faith [is given] by the same [Holy] Spirit, and to another the [extraordinary] gifts of healings by the one Spirit; 10 and to another the working of [a]miracles, and to another prophecy [foretelling the future, speaking a new message from God to the people], and to another discernment of spirits [the ability to distinguish sound, godly doctrine from the deceptive doctrine of man-made religions and cults], to another various kinds of [unknown] tongues, and to another interpretation of tongues. 11 All these things [the gifts, the achievements, the abilities, the empowering] are brought about by one and the same [Holy] Spirit, distributing to each one individually just as He chooses.
12 For just as the body is one and yet has many parts, and all the parts, though many, form [only] one body, so [b]it is with Christ. 13 For by one [Holy] Spirit we were all baptized into one body, [spiritually transformed—united together] whether Jews or Greeks (Gentiles), slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one [Holy] Spirit [since the same Holy Spirit fills each life].
14 For the [human] body does not consist of one part, but of many [limbs and organs]. 15 If the foot says, “Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body,” is it not on the contrary still a part of the body? 16 If the ear says, “Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body,” is it not on the contrary still a part of the body? 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole [body] were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But now [as things really are], God has placed and arranged the parts in the body, each one of them, just as He willed and saw fit [with the best balance of function]. 19 If they all were a single organ, where would [the rest of] the body be? 20 But now [as things really are] there are many parts [different limbs and organs], but a single body. 21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” 22 But quite the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are [absolutely] necessary; 23 and as for those parts of the body which we consider less honorable, these we treat with greater honor; and our less presentable parts are treated with greater modesty, 24 while our more presentable parts do not require it. But God has combined the [whole] body, giving greater honor to that part which lacks it, 25 so that there would be no division or discord in the body [that is, lack of adaptation of the parts to each other], but that the parts may have the same concern for one another. 26 And if one member suffers, all the parts share the suffering; if one member is honored, all rejoice with it.
27 Now you [collectively] are Christ’s body, and individually [you are] members of it [each with his own special purpose and function]. 28 So God has appointed and placed in the church [for His own use]: first apostles [chosen by Christ], second prophets [those who foretell the future, those who speak a new message from God to the people], third teachers, then those who work miracles, then those with the gifts of healings, the helpers, the administrators, and speakers in various kinds of [unknown] tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But earnestly desire and strive for the greater gifts [if acquiring them is going to be your goal].
And yet I will show you a still more excellent way [one of the choicest graces and the highest of them all: unselfish love].
Footnotes
1 Corinthians 12:10 I.e. wonderful events or occurrences beyond human capability which manifest the supernatural power of God and fulfill His purpose.
1 Corinthians 12:12 Lit is Christ.
AGAIN, SEE how the body of CHRIST is a parallel to the GBFM assembly & fellowship?
GBFM represents the GREAT MEN & collectively their higher selves or “The Better Angels of Our Nature”” as best known by President Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address
https://www.thehenryford.org/explore/blog/the-better-angels-of-our-nature-president-lincoln's-first-inaugural-address
March 4, 1861: Inauguration Day. Abraham Lincoln, the President-elect, takes the oath of office to become the 16th President of the United States. It was an uncertain time. The country was torn over the issue of slavery. For years, a tenuous arrangement had been maintained between free and slaveholding states, but now many Americans—on both sides—seemed unwilling to compromise. The Democratic Party had fractured over the issue. Two Democrats and a former Whig, each with differing views, vied to become president in 1860. This left the Republican Party, which wanted to limit slavery, with an opportunity for an electoral victory.
Lincoln, the Republican Party candidate, was elected by a minority of eligible voters, winning mainly Northern and Western states—enough for an electoral majority—but receiving little or no support from the slaveholding South. Since Lincoln’s election in November 1860, seven Southern states had seceded from the Union, and many Americans feared the other eight slave states would follow. Americans anxiously waited to hear from their new president.
In his inaugural address, Lincoln tried to allay the fears and apprehensions of those who perceived him as a radical and those who sought to break the bonds of the Union. More immediately, his address responded to the crisis at hand. Lincoln, a practiced circuit lawyer, laid out his case to dismantle the theory of secession. He believed that the Constitution provided clear options to change government through scheduled elections and amendments. Lincoln considered the more violent option of revolution as a right held by the people, but only if other means of change did not exist. Secession, Lincoln argued, was not a possibility granted by the founders of the nation or the Constitution. Logically, it would only lead to ever-smaller seceding groups. And governing sovereignty devolved from the Union—not the states, as secessionists argued. Finally, if the Constitution was a compact between sovereign states, then all parties would have to agree to unmake it. Clearly, President Lincoln did not.
Lincoln did not want conflict. His administration had yet to govern, and even so, he believed that as president he would have “little power for mischief,” as he would be constrained by the checks and balances framed in the Constitution. Lincoln implored all his countrymen to stop and think before taking rash steps. But if conflict came, he would be bound by his presidential oath to “preserve, protect, and defend” the government.
Lincoln concluded his case with the most famous passages in the speech—a call to remember the bonds that unify the country, and his vision of hope:
“I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”
Lincoln’s appeal, however, avoided the cause of the onrushing war—slavery. Failing to take this divisive issue head-on only added to its polarizing effect. Many Americans in the North found Lincoln’s speech too conciliatory. Southerners thought it threatened war. And the nation had little time to stop and think. Immediately after his inauguration, Lincoln had to decide whether to resupply Fort Sumter, the U.S. military post in Charleston harbor, the heart of secession. In April, the “bonds of affection” broke.
Lincoln had hoped that time and thoughtful deliberation would resolve this issue—and in a way it did. The tragedies of war empowered Lincoln to reconsider his views. His views on slavery and freedom evolved. No longer bound, Lincoln moved toward emancipation, toward freeing enslaved Americans, and toward his “better angels.”
Conclusion
What if General Lee hadn’t surrendered to Grant at Appotmattox and had decided to listen (instead of ”the Better Angels of Our Nature””) to some that said he should carry on the war to the bitter end? A majority of southern MEN most likely would have carried on the war as a Guerrilla war like Vietnam for decades onward.
YET, people are still arguing over whether people should forgive?
Ask yourself, if others hadn’t at least in practical ways forgiven others in the past, would you even be here today?
Pingback: On Forgiveness, Part 5 - Derek L. Ramsey