Forgiveness: a God's eye view

It’s arguably the most famous passage in the whole Christian Bible - and no, I don’t mean John 3:16 - pretty much every Christian knows that one. But by far the most widely known scripture, even among non-believers and millions who have never set foot in a church, is one that many could recite; taken from Matthew 6:9-13 where Jesus says:

Our Father which art in heaven,

Hallowed be thy name.

Thy kingdom come.

Thy will be done

in earth, as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.

And forgive us our debts,

as we forgive our debtors.

And lead us not into temptation,

but deliver us from evil:

For thine is the kingdom, and the power,

and the glory, for ever. Amen.

Apart from some updated spelling this version has remained essentially unchanged since 1611, yet it is still universally familiar in that form as what is commonly called ‘The Lord’s Prayer’ precisely because rather than in spite of the Jacobean English used.

In this article though, I should like to begin by focusing on verse 12. -

…forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

This is because forgiveness is at the very heart of the Christian Gospel. Most people understand that the Bible has a lot to say about forgiveness but is, I believe, widely misunderstood. What we do understand, however, is that God forgives and expects us to do the same, so I will endeavour to answer a number of questions that naturally arise about forgiveness:

What does it mean to forgive?

 

What does it mean in the Bible?

 

What does it mean to us?

 

What does it mean to God?

 

And is there any difference?

Forgiveness is an enormous subject, with at its heart a very simple idea which we shall understand better if we begin by considering the different words used for it in the Bible.

First, there is the straightforward English definition of the word we use to translate the original Greek and Hebrew, which means:

To pardon: to overlook: to remit a debt or offence: to be merciful or forgiving.

It derives from the Old English verb forgiefan, itself composed of the prefix for, (meaning, ‘away’) and giefan (‘to give’). However, our English verb forgive (and its noun forgiveness) translate several different Greek and Hebrew words which carry their own nuances.

There's an old expression that goes:

The Greeks have a words for it.

In fact, it is rare to find any common English word for which the Greeks do not have several, this is certainly true in the case of 'forgive' and it derivatives.

Translated as ‘forgive’ over 40 times in the New Testament,aphiemi is by far the most common Greek word ascribed this meaning, which Strong’s Concordance explains is a composite of apo - a primary particle, recognisable from the word ‘apostle’ and meaning:

‘off’, that is, ‘away’ (from something near) in various senses of place, time, or relation; literally or figuratively…as a prefix it usually denotes ‘separation’, ‘departure’, ‘cessation’, ‘completion’, ‘reversal’, etc.

And hiemi, which means:

‘to send’; an intensive form of eimi ‘to go’; ‘to send forth’, in various applications: - ‘cry’, ‘forgive’, ‘forsake’, ‘lay aside, ‘leave’, ‘let alone’, ‘let be’, ‘let go’, ‘let have’, ‘omit’, ‘put away’, ‘send away’, ‘remit’, ‘suffer’, ‘yield up’.

I think that covers all bases. Indeed aphiemi is the word used in the so-called ‘Lord’s Prayer’ and is also the one Jesus famously utters on the Cross in Luke 23:34 where he says:

“Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.”

We also find it in Matthew 26:28, where a different English word is used to convey the same sense:

For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

If you haven’t yet guessed, aphiemi here is ‘remission’. And it is the word we find in the beautiful account in Luke 7:47-48 of the woman who fell at Jesus’ feet, kissed them, washed them with her tears, wiped them with her hair and anointed them with precious ointment, much to the disgust of Jesus’ host Simon the Pharisee, to whose criticism Jesus’ responded:

“Therefore I say to you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven, he loves little.” And he said to her, “Your sins are forgiven”.

That’s aphiemi.

The richness of the verb aphiemi is further illuminated by the noun derived from it which is aphesis. This word occurs only half a dozen times in Scripture as ‘forgiveness’ and is so ascribed to Jesus only once, in Mark 3:29. Interestingly, it can also mean ‘freedom’; as well as figuratively, ‘pardon’: - ‘deliverance’, ‘liberty’, ‘remission’.

We’ll be coming back to some of these points in due course because the full ramifications of this truth can be quite startling.

In the meantime let’s turn our attention to apoluó . This word occurs a few times in the New Testament, but only once is it translated as ‘forgive’, in Luke 6:37. Nevertheless it is worth discussing for two reasons. Firstly, because of the way Jesus uses it, and secondly, for what that tells us about God’s attitude to forgiveness in general, which Strong’s defines it as:

‘to free fully’, ‘relieve’, ‘release’, ‘dismiss’, ‘depart’, ‘let die’, ‘pardon’, or ‘divorce’ ‘forgive’, ‘let go’, ‘loose’, ‘put/send away’, ‘release’, ‘set at liberty’.

Which is why we find it more commonly translated in the New Testament as ‘divorce’. But let’s take a closer look at its context in Luke 6:36-38.

Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful. "Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you."

I find it instructive how often verse 38 is quoted as a standalone scripture, torn from its context by some preachers in support of a skewed prosperity message.

I should hasten to add that I have no problem with prosperity properly taught, which we see in the Bible is the portion of every believer. I only object to scriptures being bent out of shape to fit a different agenda from that which God intended. There are ample examples in the Bible of God’s provision and prosperity without having to misapply a scripture on forgiveness. If preachers have to use Luke 6:38 for that purpose (and it can be so used) then at least it should be done properly.

The point is, the verb translated as forgive here is apoluó . Have you ever thought of forgiveness as a divorce from sin?

Charizomai occurs only a handful of times in the Bible, mostly in Paul‘s epistles, and although translated ‘forgive’, can also be rendered ‘be gracious to’. We see this in Strong’s which defines it thus:

‘to grant as a favour’, that is, ‘gratuitously’, ‘in kindness’, ‘pardon’ or ‘rescue’: - ‘deliver’, ‘(frankly) forgive’, ‘(freely) give’, ‘grant’.

And that is how we see Jesus using it in Luke 7:42, beginning in verse 41:

There were two debtors to a certain creditor: the one owed five hundred denarii and the other fifty. But they not having a thing to pay, he freely forgave both. Then which of them do you say will love him most?

That’s charizomai: Free and generous favour to those undeserving of it.

Turning now to Hebrew, there are three main words translated forgive in the Old Testament: kaphar, nasa and salach, each of which has its own nuance.

By a peculiar coincidence kaphar sounds almost like its English counterpart which is ‘cover’, and occurs in one form or another throughout the Old Testament in connection with forgiveness of sins. It also means:

‘to expiate’ or ‘condone’, ‘to placate’ or ‘cancel’: ‘appease’ ‘make atonement’, ‘cleanse’, ‘disannul’, ‘forgive’, ‘be merciful’, ‘pacify’, ‘pardon’, ‘to pitch’, ‘purge away’, ‘put off’, ‘reconcile’, ‘make reconciliation’.

It is a word near to God’s heart because although it is only specifically translated ‘forgive’ or ‘forgiven’ a few times, that sense is all over it, because it is most often translated atonement. That’s one reason the most holy day of the Hebrew Year is called Yom Kippurim - ‘the Day of Coverings’, although it is usually (and incorrectly) singularised to Yom Kippur, and commonly rendered ‘the Day of Atonement’.

And, if you’ve heard that atonement comes from ‘at-one-ment’, let me say that this is not some fanciful notion but an accurate etymology. As bizarre as it sounds, the great 16^th Century Bible translator and martyr, William Tyndale, was having great difficulty with kippur when he came up with the neologism (brand new word) atonement as a compound expressing the idea of reconciliation (making us ‘at one’) with God that the Hebrew term implies.

In one form or another, as kaphar, kopher or kepher, the root idea occurs time and again in the Old Testament, as ‘forgive’, ‘cover’, ‘atone’ or ‘ransom’. Indeed, the original ‘ransom price’ as mentioned in Exodus 30:12, relates to any census taken of the number of fighting men available in Israel.

When you count the sons of Israel, of those who are to be counted, then they shall each man give a ransom for his soul to Yahweh when you number them, so that there may be no plague among them when you number them.

This injunction was famously disobeyed by King David in 2 Samuel chapter 24 and 1 Chronicles chapter 21, when he ordered a census without any ransom price, after which seventy thousand men died in Israel as a result.

The ransom price was half a shekel of silver payable on the life of every man - high or low, rich or poor, who night take a life or lose his own in battle, thus signifying that no man’s life is more precious than another’s.

If you’d never heard of it before, you have now, because the ransom is the reason that silver is the metal symbolising redemption. It eventually evolved into the annual Temple Tax which is the one mentioned in Matthew 17:27, which Jesus sent Peter to find for them in a fish’s mouth. It is also why Jesus used the typology as a direct allusion in Matthew 20:28 and mark 10:45, respectively when he said that…

…the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

‘Forgive’, ‘forgiven’ and ‘forgiveness’, are just a few of the many facets ascribed to this word nasa (sometimes spelt nasah) whose root meaning is ‘to lift’, ‘carry’ or ‘take’. What makes it specific in Hebrew is its nuance which is man’s forgiveness of man. If I tread on your foot in a crowd, when I apologise you may offer me nasa. Similarly, should I you offend me in some way, I might extend nasa to you. And that’s how we find it used all over the Old Testament, for example in Exodus 10:16-17.

Then Pharaoh hastily called Moses and Aaron and said, "I have sinned against Yahweh your God, and against you. Now therefore, forgive my sin, please, only this once, and plead with Yahweh your God only to remove this death from me."

This connotation of our forgiving others or their forgiving us was a universally understood concept in the Hebrew Scriptures and one that would have been expected of any God-fearing Jew in Jesus’ day. It would not have been considered in the least bit controversial, and even Jesus’ teaching on extending mercy to one’s enemies, although somewhat on the fringe, was not unique among the rabbis of his day. Contrary to popular opinion, mercy is as much a part of the Old Testament as the New, and many of Jesus’ followers would have been more than familiar with the idea.

Sallach, on the other hand, was something quite different. Meaning ‘to forgive’, ‘pardon’ or ‘spare’, you could be forgiven (no pun intended) for wondering what all the fuss was about until we see the turmoil surrounding the way that Jesus used it. Along with its noun selichah (forgiveness), the thing that distinguished sallach from nasa was that it was used to convey the idea of God‘s forgiveness of sin.

Even in the Greek this nuance is missed because in the New Testament aphiemi is used for both. However, as Jesus himself explicitly stated in Matthew 15:24, the general thrust of his earthly ministry was to his fellow Jews and not to the Gentiles, therefore, he would most likely have favoured Hebrew or Aramaic in which to teach. But it is clear from the enormous offence that Jesus caused wherever he went. Many times he was accused blasphemy for forgiving sins - something regarded as the sole prerogative of God (Mark 2:7 and Luke 5:21) - where his hearers were acutely aware of his confrontational choice of language, whereas at other times he met with no objection whatsoever.

We can see an example of how Jesus must have used ‘sallach’ which the Greek scripture translates as ‘aphiemi’ in Matthew 9:6.

But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" - he then said to the paralytic - "Rise, pick up your bed and go home."

Now that we have established a foundation for understanding what the Bible means by forgiveness, we can use this knowledge to draw out nuggets of understanding hidden from the causal observer.

There are number of pivotal ramifications that arise from our close study of Biblical forgiveness, that are not readily obvious to the superficial eye. And as we move on to examine what these are, prepare to be surprised and at times possibly even shocked.

Many Christians may be astonished to discover that God does not forgive sin. Why should he?

The confusion arises from our inability to distinguish the sin from the person committing it. However, God does make the distinction and it is not sin that God forgives, but sinners. Sin, per se, is an absolute no-no to God and something quite intolerable to him which he must judge, condemn and destroy in righteousness whenever it is brought before him. That has always been the case, and nothing has changed. But notice what we discovered earlier: Forgiveness is freedom. But freedom from what? - From sin, from condemnation and from guilt. And remember too that forgiveness is likened to a divorce. But a divorce from what? - From sin, from condemnation and from guilt.

When we sin against God we ‘miss the mark’ - the literal rendering of hamartia, the Greek word most often translated as sin in the New Testament. But miss whose mark? The answer is, the mark of the Law, which the apostle Paul calls ‘the ministry of death’ in 2 Corinthians 3:7 and ‘ministry of condemnation’ in verse 9.

So, does that mean that God has somehow discarded the Law or lowered his standards? - The answer to that is a resounding, No!

What God has done, however, is free us from the bondage of the Law in a manner analogous to a divorce. But if you think that’s fanciful, you’ll have take it up with Paul again, who says in Romans 7:1-4.

Or are you ignorant, brothers; for I speak to those who know the Law; that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives?

For the married woman was bound by law to the living husband. But if the husband is dead, she is set free from the law of her husband.

So then if, while her husband lives, she is married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress. But if the husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is no adulteress by becoming another man's wife.

So, my brothers, you also have become dead to the law by the body of Christ so that you should be married to Another, even to him raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit to God.

You might quibble that he is talking about widowhood and not divorce, but the analogy is quite flexible. Paul starts by saying ‘that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives’.

Paul then switches imagery to a woman married to the Law before expanding his argument that, while the husband lives, the wife is bound to his will, ‘But if the husband dies, she is free from the law’.

He then switches tack again, and instead of the husband dying (because the law is perfect and cannot die), the wife’s freedom is achieved when she becomes ‘dead to the law by the body of Christ so that you should be married to Another, even to him raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit to God’.

It’s all very convoluted: Very Pauline: Very rabbinical. But that’s how the rabbi argued.

We see the same sort of use of typology in Galatians 4:21-31, where Paul uses the analogy of two women to represent two covenants - the Old Covenant and the New Covenant:

Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise.

 

Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.

 

For it is written, "Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labour! For the children of the desolate one will be more than those of the one who has a husband."

 

Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now.

 

But what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman."

 

So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.

As ever, Paul was vehement that freedom in Christ means freedom from the Law - which he likens to the slavery of Hagar and Mount Sinai. Thus he continues in chapter 5:1-4,

For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.

 

Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you.

 

I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

That last sentence is seldom emphasised in legalistic churches where it is commonly taught that we ‘fall from grace’ when we sin. Not at all, says Paul, in the only verse in the New Testament that mentions falling from grace…That only happens to believers who turn back to the Law.

Whether or not Paul wrote the Letter to the Hebrews, the writer certainly follows his typology, in Hebrews 12:22-24.

But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

This is because the Law was given at Mount Sinai, whereas grace came to Mount Zion, where Jesus’ blood was shed on the Cross. And you might want to compare Paul’s mention of ‘the Jerusalem above’ in Galatians 4:26 with ‘the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem’, mentioned in Hebrews 12:22.

So far we have seen that God’s forgiveness is through the blood of Jesus and extends to freeing us from the bondage of the Law. But how is that achieved? And does it mean that we can just do as please and sin as much as we like once we are saved? And if we are totally forgiven by God, does that mean we should forgive all and sundry who might harm or offend us, exercising no judgement upon them?

These are very relevant questions because so many Christians have gone to the polar extremes of liberty and license. And the reason they have done so is that they have not rightly divided the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15).

One of the most prevalent errors in the Body of Christ is to veer from Law to license in the misapprehension that God’s grace is some kind of ‘Get Out of Jail Free Card’, to be pulled out on Judgement Day.

That is not the case, as Paul reiterated time and again to those who accused him of peddling Antinomianism (the doctrine that we are without Law).

Not at all says Paul, because while we are under grace and not Law, grace is no pushover, but the enabling power of God to live free of the power of sin. Hence in Romans 6:13-15, Paul emphatically insists:

Do not yield your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but yield yourselves to God, as one alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.

For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under Law, but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under Law, but under grace? Let it not be!

As I said before God never has, never does, nor ever will forgive sin. Think about it: If forgiveness is freedom, how can God free sin. Sin is an abstract, albeit with concrete consequences. Sinners, on the other hand, are people - and God does forgive those.

By his grace God frees us from the consequences of sin and the power of sin, including the desire to sin. By God’s forgiveness we are divorced from sin, or in the words of the Psalmist:

For as the heavens are high above the earth, so is his mercy toward those who fear him. As far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us. As a father pities his children, Yahweh pities those who fear him. For he knows our form; he remembers that we are dust.

(Psalm 103:11-14)

Or, to put it another way:

"This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds," then he adds, "I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more."

(Hebrews 10:16-17)

The latter reference is a quote by the writer of Hebrews, taken from Jeremiah 31:31-34.

"Behold, the days are coming, declares Yahweh, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares Yahweh.

 

"But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares Yahweh: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbour and each his brother, saying, 'Know Yahweh,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares Yahweh. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

And what the prophet Jeremiah anticipated as a future event Jesus fulfilled, as he promised in Luke 22:19-20, at the Last Supper:

And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me."

 

And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

As one of the stipulations in the Mosaic Law was that each was to teach the knowledge of Yahweh, clearly the law that God promised to put into men’s hearts under the New Covenant would not be the Law of Moses but the law of Grace - the Royal Law of Love (James 2:8).

So where does that leave us? Christians are under the new Covenant of Grace and not the old Covenant of Law. We’re forgiven, saved and redeemed by the blood of Christ shed on the Cross. But how does God’s forgiveness actually work?

If God cannot tolerate sin in his presence, how does he rid us of it? If he really can forgive our iniquity and will himself to remember our sin no more, how does he do it? If God really does remove our transgressions as far as the east is from the west, just how far is that?

The answer is, as far as Calvary, because God’s mechanism for your Salvation was judicial. When Jesus dies for your sin and mine he died in our place, fully satisfying the Law’s requirement for blood with his own life.

I think that this is possibly the most overlooked aspect of mankind’s Fall in Eden; not that Adam’s sin doomed all of his descendents to die but that, by eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam doomed Jesus to the Cross.

You see, we often forget there were two trees in the midst of the Garden: The tree of life and the tree of death: The tree of grace and the tree of law.

By choosing the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam chose the tree of death and the law, changing the whole dynamic of the universe, by releasing the law, thereby obliging God to rescue mankind through the Law (which is shorthand for justification by performance and self-effort) - through his Son, born under the Law (Galatians 4:4).

So, When Jesus died on the cross for our sins, he righteously fulfilled the Law’s requirements on our behalf. No sin was swept under the carpet: No blind eye was turned to any transgression. Every sin was paid for in full, which his why we can be forgiven; because it is unlawful to try anyone for the same crime twice; and all the more so when the debt has already been discharged. It’s a simple transaction that was enacted in every sacrificial offering made under the Old Covenant - our sins were transferred onto Jesus, while his righteousness was imputed to us. That’s why Paul could write in Colossians 2:13-14,

And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he has made alive together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses, blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and has taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross.

That term ‘the handwriting of ordinances’ is ‘cheirographon tois dogmasin’ in Greek; or literally, ‘the handwritten decree’, which was a understood expression that we might render as an I.O.U.

‘Blotted out’ is ‘exaleiphas’, which means ‘obliterated’; describing what we might today call heaven’s delete button. It’s the same strong term that Peter uses in Acts 3:19 -

Therefore repent and convert so that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

In effect, since Jesus died on the Cross our Salvation has been a done deal. There is nothing more for Jesus to do that he hasn’t already done. Even his resurrection is over, as he now sits at the right hand of the Father in glory.

The importance of the resurrection is what it demonstrates, because while Jesus’ death on the Cross was necessary that we might be saved, his resurrection was necessary that we might believe. That’s very important because it points to our sole contribution to our own salvation - faith and repentance. And no, that’s not a typographical error, requirement is singular because faith and repentance are two facets of the same thing inasmuch as we cannot repent without faith and cannot believe without repentance.

This is because, as I explain in more detail in my article Taking up our cross, repentance is not penitence. Penitence is our unbiblical attempt to show by our own efforts how sorry we are for our sins. Repentance, on the other hand is our Biblical response to God’s conviction, and is translated from the Greek metanoia which literally means ‘change-of-mind’ and describes changing the direction of our thinking.

As Jesus explained in John 16:8-11, in the case of the unsaved sinner repentance amounts to his surrender to the conviction of the Holy Spirit that he cannot rescue himself and needs a Saviour. In the case of the redeemed believer, it is when he acknowledges the Spirit’s conviction that he is now the righteousness of God in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21).

The utter necessity of repentance is evident in John 3:16, in which Jesus famously says:

For God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life.

To whom did God give his only begotten Son? - Everyone.

Is everyone saved? - No.

So, how does that work?

The answer is that those who will not repent cannot be saved. But why?

Because even God cannot force a creature he has gifted with freewill to repent against that will. And since the sinner needs to acknowledge his guilt and need of a Saviour in order to receive God’s forgiveness, his refusal to repent renders him incapable of receiving it.

It’s as simple as Ephesians 2:8 tells us: ‘by grace we are saved through faith, and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God’.

Grace is God’s part and has already been extended to us. Faith is our part and depends on us. Yet even that faith was a gift from a God who made it as easy as possible for us in the first place, so all we’re really asked to contribute is the will to use the gift God has offered us. But sadly, for too many, even that seems too much to ask.

It is not that God desires that anyone should go to hell, but that they choose to refuse his grace and end up there by default.

Which brings us to another vital area of forgiveness - in our personal relationships. When should we forgive one another? For the Christian the short answer to that is always, but does that mean that God intended his people to be doormats? - No he didn’t, but this is where too many Christians come unstuck because they haven‘t paid attention to what the Bible actually says.

Many will correctly quote Matthew 18:21-22 regarding forgiveness:

Then Peter came to him and said, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Until seven times?” Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, until seven times; but, until seventy times seven”.

There we have it: Jesus himself admonishing the apostle Peter to forgive his brother’s offences 490 times in the same day if necessary. Of course Jesus wasn’t really applying a rigid numerical value to how often we should forgive. Seven is the number of divine completion, so Jesus was emphasising a spiritual principle with rabbinical hyperbole.

What is often missed is the context of Jesus’ words, so let’s take a wider look in verses 15-27:

“But if your brother shall trespass against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother.

 

“But if he will not hear you, take one or two more with you, so that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

 

“And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he neglects to hear the church, let him be to you as a heathen and a tax-collector.

 

“Truly I say to you, Whatever you shall bind on earth shall occur, having been bound in Heaven; and whatever you shall loose on earth shall occur, having been loosed in Heaven.

 

“Again I say to you that if two of you shall agree on earth as regarding anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them by my Father in Heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in their midst.

 

Then Peter came to him and said, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Until seven times?” Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, until seven times; but, until seventy times seven.”

At first glance Jesus appears to be giving out a mixed message here, but all it takes to understand what he is saying is a little careful attention to detail and a useful key found in another scripture, in Luke 17:3-4.

Take heed to yourselves. If your brother trespasses against you, rebuke him. And if he repents, forgive him. And if he trespasses against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turns again to you, saying, I repent, you shall forgive him.

Notice here that Jesus does not say to gloss over or sweep under your brother’s offence but to confront him about it. ‘Rebuke him’, says Jesus, ‘and if he repents, forgive him’.

And there’s that word again:

‘if he repents’.

So, is Jesus saying that we need not forgive him if he does not repent? - No. Rather, that if our brother refuses to repent he makes it impossible for himself to receive our forgiveness. We are still to hold open forgiveness towards him, but if he won’t take it, that’s not our responsibility.

We see this at the beginning of the passage where Jesus describes how to handle a conflict in the church when an offended party is instructed to confront his offender. But what if he nevertheless refuses to acknowledge his fault?

If that happens, says Jesus, return with witnesses, then, if he still refuses to repent, take the matter further and inform the church. If he still remains obstinate then the church is to put him out of fellowship.

This is the flip side of the freedom that forgiveness brings - Freedom from old relationships - because Jesus says we are to break off with those who persistently offend without conscience.

And there are many other such scriptures, one being 1 Timothy 5:19-21.

Do not receive an accusation against an elder except before two or three witnesses. Those who sin, rebuke before all, so that the rest also may fear. I charge you before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that you guard these things without prejudice, doing nothing by partiality.

Those are strong words when you consider this is the same Paul who taught a grace doctrine so radical, he was accused of antinomianism.

Two other widely misapplied scriptures are found in Matthew 7:1-5

Judge not, that you may not be judged. For with whatever judgment you judge, you shall be judged; and with whatever measure you measure out, it shall be measured to you again.

And why do you look on the splinter that is in your brother's eye, but do not consider the beam that is in your own eye? Or how will you say to your brother, “Let me pull the splinter out of your eye;” and, behold, a beam is in your own eye?

Hypocrite! First cast the beam out of your own eye, and then you shall see clearly to cast the splinter out of your brother's eye.

These are two scriptures that are widely bandied about, and are often very popular among unbelievers who wish to offend and silence Christians at the same time, by admonishing them that Christians are not permitted to judge wrong conduct. They are, of course, quite wrong, but many Christians are unable to say why because they haven‘t carefully checked the scriptures. What is often overlooked is that Jesus is making two distinct points.

Firstly, ‘Judge not, that you may not be judged’, is not prohibiting wise discernment, but careless condemnation. In particular, Jesus’ admonition that ‘For with whatever judgment you judge, you shall be judged; and with whatever measure you measure out, it shall be measured to you again’, has been widely misunderstood.

What Jesus is referring to here is invoking the Law, because once you invoke the Law, it may turn back and bite you. A practical instance of this happened to a minister friend of mine who started up a new church a few years ago. A much older pastor who had been well established in that area for decades ripped right into my friend, criticising and condemning his ministry which he predicted would imminently fold.

As I said, that was a few years ago, and my friend’s church is still going, but that of the minister who condemned him collapsed three months later. How come? - Because he invoked the Law and brought down judgement on himself.

Likewise, the second scripture does not prohibit examining the splinter in our brother's eye, but doing so while not considering the beam that is in our own. When we look at our own faults first we are more likely to render a more compassionate and merciful verdict on our brother’s shortcomings, which is why Jesus did not conclude by saying ‘don‘t cast the splinter out of your brother’s eye' but,

First cast the beam out of your own eye, and then you shall see clearly to cast the splinter out of your brother's eye.

The charge is against hypocrisy, not judgement.

I suspect a lot of these misapplication of scripture can be traced back to moral cowardice on the part of some teachers and preachers in the past, or someone's over-reaction to an over-controlling and legalistic ministry. For whatever reason, they have twisted scripture out of shape in order to absolve themselves of any responsibility to make any moral judgement whatsoever. However, this is not Biblical, and perhaps the best evidence of this is found in 1 Corinthians 5:9-1, where Paul writes:

I wrote to you in the letter not to associate intimately with fornicators; yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then you must go out of the world.

But now I have written to you not to associate intimately, if any man called a brother and is either a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one not to eat.

For what is it to me to also judge those who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But God judges those who are outside. Therefore put out from you the evil one.

This passage actually has something to irritate legalist and liberal alike. The legalists in the church will be less than pleased at being told they have no business in judging the conduct those outside the church, while liberal noses will be put out of joint at Paul‘s vehement admonition to shun the company of the persistently unrepentant sinner who calls himself a Christian.

There is another underestimated aspect of repentance of which we see an eloquent example in Jesus’ parable of the unmerciful servant in Matthew 18:23-35.

Therefore the kingdom of Heaven has been compared to a certain king who desired to make an accounting with his servants. And when he had begun to count, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. But as he had nothing to pay, his lord commanded that he, and his wife and children, and all that he had, be sold, and payment be made. Then the servant fell down and worshiped him, saying, “Lord, have patience with me and I will pay you all.” Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion and released him and forgave him the debt.”

But the same servant went out and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii. And he laid hands on him and took him by the throat, saying, “Pay me what you owe.” And his fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying, “Have patience with me and I will pay you all.” And he would not, but went and cast him into prison until he should pay the debt.

So when his fellow servants saw what was done, they were very sorry. And they came and told their lord all that was done. Then his lord, after he had called him, said to him, “O wicked servant, I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. Should you not also have pitied your fellow servant, even as I had pity on you?”

And his lord was angry, and delivered him to the tormentors until he should pay all that was due to him. So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also to you, unless each one of you from your hearts forgive his brother their trespasses.

At first sight it seems logical that this parable is situated right after Jesus’ admonition to Peter to forgive his brother seventy times seven. Clearly, it’s all about his unforgiving attitude towards his fellow servant. But a closer examination reveals something altogether more startling.

Notice how in verse 26 the servant cries: “Lord, have patience with me and I will pay you all.” That’s not repentance; that’s penitence. The man’s root problem was not his inability to forgive his colleague but his inability to repent. We see from his behaviour that he was filled with remorse for the consequences that his debt had incurred, and we can also imagine how enormously relieved he was when his debt was extinguished. But there is something missing.

Contrast this man’s reaction with that of the woman we read of earlier in Luke 7, who kissed, washed and anointed Jesus’ feet, of whom Jesus then told Simon:

“Therefore I say to you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven, he loves little.”

Ten thousand talents is a lot of money. Just one talent was an ingot of silver or gold weighing about 27 pounds, that’s over four million ounces, so we‘re talking billions of dollars here.

You might imagine that no-one could relate to that much money but the Galilean puppet, King Herod, received an annual income from Rome of ten thousand talents of gold, so it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that Jesus actually had the infamously profligate and corrupt Herod in mind as the template for his unmerciful servant.

But when I say he was unrepentant I refer to his untransformed mind that just couldn’t grasp the extent to which he had been forgiven. In his heart he still somehow imagined he could pay it off himself and was consequently ungrateful which made him feel condemned resulting in his pathological need to persecute others.

The unmerciful servant was not truly free because he did not feel truly forgiven, which illustrates my point that even when it is freely offered forgiveness may not be appropriated.

Forgiveness is a gift that can only be received by the repentant, not because God is stingy but because when we are unrepentant we are unwilling to surrender our right to remain condemned. That might sound strange, but it’s how pride so often manifests.

Too many people (many believers among them) feel the need for forgiveness but lack the will to surrender to it. They like the idea of being free but want to come to God on their own terms in order to avoid what they perceive as the drudgery of the Christian life. For this, the church must accept its own share of responsibility because drudgery is too often how the Christian life has been portrayed. Do this, do that; don’t do that, don’t do this. Too many churches have turned grace on its head and sold it as Law Nouveau. Too many denominations have taught that sinners are saved by Jesus but discipled by Moses - but to live like that, as we have seen in Scripture, is to ‘fall from grace’.

There again, those on the liberal extreme have too often taught libertarianism and license, failing to understand that our Salvation is not free but comes to us from a gracious Father as very costly gift.

And too often, penitence has been miss-sold as repentance, for penitence is merely the desire to show how sorry we, as opposed to repentance which is the desire to express our gratitude - which is what makes us free because it is that which enables us to wholeheartedly appropriate God‘s forgiveness.

You wouldn’t think a little thankfulness was too much to ask from a people to whom God has given so very much because as we saw earlier, it’s not even about our own effort but what Jesus has already done. And don’t be confused by verses like Revelation 3:5 -

The one who overcomes, this one will be clothed in white clothing. And I will not blot out his name out of the Book of Life, but I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels.

The one who overcomes is not us but as the same writer reveals in John 16:33,

I have spoken these things to you so that you might have peace in me. In the world you shall have tribulation, but be of good cheer. I have overcome the world.

And in 1 John 4:4,

You are of God, little children, and you have overcome them, because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.

So, don’t sweat it, just receive God’s forgiveness and tell him you’re thankful. Then you will discover the depth of Jesus promises in John 8:32 & 36 -

And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free…Therefore if the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.