This is part 10 of a series on forgiveness. See the index here.
Recall in Part 6 that just prior to giving his instruction on forgiveness and dealing with a brother who sins against another, Jesus talked about stumbling blocks. Here we have Paul also talking about stumbling blocks:
But take care lest by any means this liberty of yours becomes a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone sees you who have knowledge reclining to eat in an idol’s temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be emboldened to eat things sacrificed to idols? And so by your knowledge, the one who is weak is ruined—this brother for whose sake Christ died. And when you sin against the brothers or sisters in this way, and when you wound their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food causes my brother to fall away, I will never eat meat, lest I cause my brother or sister to fall away.
Notice that Paul altered his behavior even though he did not have to because it helped a weaker brother. This is why, for example, drinkers will not drink about those who abstain, or people who “curse” will not say certain words around others who believe it is wrong.
Indeed, Paul declared that to do otherwise—to cause a brother to stumble—was actually a sin against both your brother and Jesus! The obligation is on the one with the stronger faith, the one who is posesses the objectively correct theology to bend themselves, rather than demand that the weaker comply. In other words, those of strong faith must be humble.
The failure to forgive is like this. Even if you think, by your own conscience, that forgiveness is conditional, you must nevertheless act like it is unconditional in order that you will not cause your brother to stumble.
But we can make an even stronger conclusion. The failure to forgive is not merely a sin against a brother, it is a sin against yourself:
Forgiveness is very simple – at least in terms of what we ourselves need to do. We must forgive because forgiveness is entirely about us, and not at all about the person to be forgiven.
Failure to forgive doesn’t affect the other person – who has his own salvation to work out, and another person’s salvation does not depend on what we do (well, someone’s Attitude to salvation may be affected by us (albeit unpredictably); but the choice is theirs — and although we might deter, certainly we can do nothing at all to Prevent another person choosing salvation).
But failure to forgive is a sin because it is a failure to repent the sin of resentment. It is clinging to resentment – preferring the sin to Heaven.
I think this can easily be seen in real life, in that failure to forgive someone often survives without any knowledge of what happened to that person, where they now are, and even that person’s death.
I have known people who continue to resent someone because of things that happened during their early childhood, and long after everyone else involved has died. The failure to forgive/ holding-to resentment is hurting just one person, and that is the resenter.
This is shown well in CS Lewis’s account – in the Great Divorce – of the man who refuses to forgive a repentant murderer; and who therefore refuses to enter a Heaven in which a repentant murderer has been forgiven. The man who will not forgive, prefers his own state of resentment to Heaven.
Failure to forgive seems often associated with people who are in-denial at their own multiple and frequent sinning; or who think that their own sins are trivial compared with those of others.
What Jesus did for us is so simple and radical and achievable by anybody at any time; that people still cannot believe it even after (or especially after!) 2000 years.
When your brother sins against you, you must forgive him for his sake and you must forgive him for your own sake.
How do you envisaging this working when the forgiveness might come (say) 70 years after the brother’s death?
– Yes, in a sense; but I think that sometimes people cannot do this, due to some weakness or flaw of character – and then I think the persons who cannot forgive needs to repent the sin of not-forgiving.
As always in mortal life, we cannot cease from sinning; but anybody is capable of repenting his inability to cease from sin.
I think that this probably comes into effect at resurrection; when we need to repent all sins as a part of the “process” of being fitted for Heaven. It’s not so much that we need already to have repented all sins prior to repentance, but that when it comes to the crunch (I presume after mortal death, before resurrection*), we must want:
Not to sin at all ever again.
That’s pretty much what I mean by repentance.
*I try to be aware that everything required for salvation must be Possible for everyone (because God is good and the creator and loves us each, and therefore must have made things thus) – which includes a foetus who dies in the womb, babies, mentally handicapped and brain damaged people, and so forth.
This is a reason why I feel that the crunch must come Not during mortal life, but post-mortally.
Bruce,
I don’t! To clarify:
“When your brother sins against you, you must forgive him immediately for his sake.”
Absent time travel, it is plainly impossible to resolve seventy years later what should have been resolved immediately. Indeed, per 1 Corinthians 8:7-13 (cited in the OP), my lack of forgiveness could result in the very real loss of a brother, even if I am saved. I consider this a stern warning from Paul to forgive “early and often” lest irreversible damage result.
Something like that is seemingly implied by 1 Corinthians 3:15. It’s still not a matter of ultimate salvation, but it does determine one’s relative placement or rank in the kingdom.
Remember our conversation on the benefit of the doubt on your blog here? I’ve been thinking about that.
My agreement or disagreement depends on whether this…
…and the parallel passage in Matthew 18 are being literal or ironic. I find it hard to justify the former. If someone sins against you 490 times between sunset and sundown and each time “repents,” it’s quite difficult to conclude that they actually want to not sin ever again. If that counts as repentance, then the bar for what qualifies is incredibly low.
The Jewish rabbinic tradition to forgive seven times in a day reflects the Principle of Charity: giving the benefit of the doubt. But Jesus turns this on its head. A person who sins hundreds of times against you in a day is an evil person. It’s obvious, at least to me, that such a person is acting in bad faith and does not, in fact, deserve the benefit of the doubt. Yet, Jesus—having called this repentance—says to forgive them anyway.
But I will carefully consider what you have said.
Peace,
DR
@Derek – I am taking a very purist stance in this argument – I am not at all concerned with what is publicly expedient or what other people think or know.
I don’t care (for this purpose) whether anyone else thinks someone is acting in bad faith.
I am talking about what goes on between a Man and God. A Man can repent without any person knowing, or publicly repent verbally while not really doing so. Of course we must discern the behaviour of others, and act upon our judgements, such is the nature of this mortal world; but this is not the real thing when it comes to salvation!
But perhaps you don’t understand my point or else you would not seem to be suggesting that we must repent a sin immediately (and try very hard never to commit this sin again).
To which I would point out that we sin nearly all the time and cannot stop. Sin is just a way of describe that we are not fully aligned with God’s purposes and methods, we are not in perfect harmony with divine creation – we do not live always by love.
It’s fine to talk about sins as if they were a countable set of discrete behaviours when we do so for particular and limited purposes – but this isn’t really true. This is a wrong way to conceptualize the problem.
It is absolutely impossible to repent All sins immediately or to get anywhere near this goal – and Jesus said as much, and what he did took this fact into account. There will always be shoals of unnoticed/ unrepented sins around our necks.
What we all can do is acknowledge and repent (not deny and excuse) if and when our sins become evident or are pointed out.
We can’t get anywhere near sinlessness – we are not set up that way and neither is this world. We could not do it even if we had nothing else to do in our life. As we looked out for one kind of sin, we would be sure to commit several other kinds while our attention was elsewhere!
Even the best people are massive sinners, and only a few people can ever be the best – yet All are called (and able, if they want) to follow Jesus.
I find I need to focus on how Jesus made it possible for the worst characters and worst behaved people, including those who cannot cease from sinning, and cannot even make themselves want to cease, to follow him.
I take it that this lies behind the references to tax collectors etc – I think we are meant to conclude that these kinds of people can follow Jesus – without in practice giving up their nasty jobs.
Sorry – this comment is way too long and rambling, but it’s nearly bedtime so I shall let it stand – and you can ignore it without a second glance.
Well, I guess the difference is this: you are talking about repentance and I am talking about forgiveness.
Jesus said that failure to forgive is unforgivable. When I read Luke 17:3-4, I see a brother who doesn’t—or more likely can’t—truly repent according to the meaning of the word in Greek (not your meaning of ‘repent’). He isn’t actually changing his ways. And, as you’ve rightly noted he is completely unable to do so.
I see Jesus as saying that “your brother is unable to truly repent, so you should forgive him regardless”
Of course anyone is able to repent according to your definition: to want to stop sinning. But I don’t see this as Jesus’ meaning here.
So I don’t disagree with your points.
We agree that a failure to forgive is a sin – but it is confusing and mistaken to say this makes it “unforgiveable” because the unforgiving person may forgive… later on.
Surely you would agree that delayed forgiveness would suffice for salvation?
Failure to forgive is like any other sin in this respect. It has no special punishment. To call failure to forgive “unforgiveable” comes across to me as little more than an unfortunate play on words, rather than a special insight.
*Any* sin – unrepented – is enough to prevent salvation.
After all, Heaven wouldn’t be Heaven if it included defiantly unforgiving people people harbouring grudges!
Bruce,
Yes, delayed but eventual forgiveness is enough for salvation. But no, failure to forgive is not like other sins. Jesus specifically signaled it out multiple times in no uncertain terms.
No, I think we have a fundamentally different emphasis. You are concerned with repentance, while I am not. I think you need to read today’s post and then tomorrow’s post tomorrow (although Tennant’s post is a partially helpful alternative until then).
It all hinges on this question: how could Jesus forgive sins—i.e. grant eternal life—before he shed his blood for the forgiveness of sins?
It wasn’t because people repented. It wasn’t even an acknowledgment that they were sinners and wanted to stop sinning, for Jesus told them to stop sinning only after they were already forgiven.
No, it was faith and faith alone.
For you and I, faith is enough to eradicate any and every sin, except for the refusal to forgive.
That one is different, because unlike most others it prevents the saving work of Christ through the Holy Spirit. Willfully denying the work of the Holy Spirit can’t be forgiven, at least not permanently (see footnote 2).
I’ll be honest with you. I find this stance you’ve taken to be very strange, because the Fourth Gospel is all about faith. It doesn’t even mention repentance. My focus on faith is derived, in large part, because of the primacy of the Fourth Gospel compared to the Synoptics. From my perspective, I don’t understand why you would disagree with me. I’m not really sure we even have a disagreement.
Peace,
DR