A common trend in modern evangelical thought is that a Christian must forgive unequivocally and regardless of the circumstances. If someone offends or hurts you it becomes your obligation to forgive the perpetrator even though he or she demonstrates no remorse and refuses to correct the transgression. In other words the “stronger” brother must forgive the “weaker,” overlook the sin, draw no lines of fellowship, and just be the bigger person in the whole situation. To carry the burden, so the theory goes, damages the injured party even more emotionally. Therefore to be psychologically whole he needs to release the anger, turn it over to God, forgive the infraction, and carry on as if nothing ever happened.
If the above description seems an unfair assessment of modern day evangelicals then may I suggest listening to a few of the self help sermons that float across the airways of “Christian Radio.” Admittedly the theory sounds good. Did Christ not look down from the cross on unrepentant sinners and say, “Father forgiven them for they know not what they do”? Is it not true that anger saddles the heart with untold burden? Is it not more righteous when wronged to simply suffer for it? And what of someone who has harmed us and then dies before they make restitution. What of the alcoholic father who abuses his children and then dies before he sees the error of his ways? Is the child to simply carry the infraction of his life and not bring closure to his grief by forgiving his deceased parent?
Obviously nothing good ever comes from harboring the emotional weight brought on by wrongs that others have committed against us. And it is certainly true that Jesus asked God to forgive the unrepentant reprobates that nailed him to the cross. But the above theology of forgiveness is not entirely biblical in spite of how righteous it sounds. Certainly Christians must be willing to suffer abuse without retaliation (Matt. 5:39). We must be willing to be a bigger person in the petty grievances that mark every day life. But to forgive someone that neither seeks restitution nor demonstrates any regard for God’s law is quite a different matter.
At the outset we must remember that biblical forgiveness is not simply an emotional exercise whereby we release our anger. While releasing anger may be very helpful to our psychological disposition, and may be scriptural (Eph 4:26), it does not take into account the fact that biblical forgiveness involves more than just me and the person who harmed me. Biblical forgiveness involves God. I have neither the right nor the ability to wholly forgive someone whom God has not forgiven. Now there may be situations where we have no choice but to defer to God and ultimately let Him be the judge. However, this does not erase the fact that forgiveness of another’s sin ultimately brings is God’s decision for He alone forgives sin.
We must also understand that biblical forgiveness has strings attached. Biblical forgiveness must be accomplished in accordance with God’s will. His word must be the guide for how and when one is forgiven. To simply decide unilaterally that we will forgive someone is not our ultimate prerogative. Even after Jesus prayed to God that his murders be forgiven, he commissioned the apostles to take the gospel (God’s saving plan) to them. As demonstrated at Pentecost until sinners repented of their sins and obeyed the gospel they were lost (Acts 2:38).
While the modern theology of unconditional and unilateral forgiveness probably stems from noble motives it is not biblical. Society, so enamored with its no-fault polity, would rather sweep sin under the rug than hold a guilty party accountable for their actions. Society teaches us that to keep from offending others we must not demand accountability. God, on the other hand, does not forgive until His stipulations have been met. We may sweep things under the rug and walk away feeling good about our generosity. In time we may “forgive” and forget. However, God does not forget when His criterion has been satisfied.
At first brush the above analysis may seem harsh and unchristian. As we will see, however, even though biblical forgiveness is conditional once God’s terms have been met it must be offered without reservation. There is never one so willing and eager to forgive as the true follower of Jesus Christ. With this in mind let us look at what Jesus has to say about dealing with a sinning brother in Matthew 18. What we will see is that forgiveness is never passive. So precious is the restoration of a sinning brother that the injured party, in spite of being hurt, takes the initiative of reconciliation. Much as God did with a sinful world, the wounded party steps outside himself and his own pain to pursue peace.
As with all scripture, Matthew 18:15-20 must be interpreted in light of its broader context. Generally speaking Matthew 18 is about “seeking the lost.” From verse 10 to the end of the chapter the theme is reconciliation and forgiveness. In verse 10 Jesus begins his assessment of the value of each “little one” (ie: believers, no matter how humble in status) as he tells the parable about a lost sheep. The point of this parable is that when lost the “one” takes precedent over the “many” that are safe in the fold. Thus Jesus concludes his teaching in verse 14 by saying, “Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish” (NKJV). Luke’s parallel poignantly sums up this parable and notes, “I say to you that likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance” (15:7). Notice that Jesus emphasizes the effort of the shepherd who goes into the rugged mountainous terrain to seek the wandering sheep. Though it is not the shepherd’s negligence that causes the sheep to go astray; nevertheless as a mature leader the shepherd takes the initiative to restore the wanderer. In the next section, which we will return to later and which serves as a bridge in the chapter, the same principle is taught.
The last section of Matthew 18 takes a bit different turn as Jesus describes the believer’s responsibility to forgive in view of God’s forgiveness. The “king” (vs. 23) represents God with the first servant (vs. 24) representing the believer who has been forgiven of his sin debt. In turn, the second servant (vs. 28) represents others who might from time to time stand in the need of our forgiveness. Though much less guilty in comparison to our guilt before God, our fellow man gives us a chance to demonstrate how we really feel about forgiveness. God will not forgive those who do not forgive.
Jesus summation is found in verse 25 when he says, “So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses.” Recall that Jesus began is ministry with similar teaching in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 6:14-15).
The last section of Matthew 18, however, is not without its own context. In verse 21 Peter comes to Jesus and poses a difficult question. Having heard Jesus say that a Christian must forgive one who has trespassed against him, Peter wants to know the limits of this forgiveness. Peter asks, “Up to seven times?” Jesus replies, “Seventy times seven.” Peter’s statement probably stems from scribal tradition which held that forgiveness should be extended but three times to a fellow brother. Peter, thinking he is being generous, doubles the number and then adds one to make it a perfect seven times. Jesus’ response to Peter’s munificence is shocking. Obviously Jesus does not have in mind forgiving a literal 490 times, which might be impossible to keep track of anyway, but is teaching that forgiveness must be open ended. As long as there is true repentance on the part of a sinner then forgiveness is to be extended. Luke 17:4 qualifies Matthew 18 and adds “and seven times in a day returns saying I repent.” Thus the initial point of our study is sustained that forgiveness is not a unilateral action but requires some kind of repentance on the part of the sinner before true reconciliation can be brokered. This is further demonstrated by the fact that the king, after initially offering forgiveness to the first servant, retracts his offer when it becomes apparent that the servant rather enjoys justice over mercy. The first servant, by rejecting his fellow man’s request for mercy, demonstrates insincerity in his own previous request to the king. One cannot ask for that he refuses to give!
In any event, Peter’s question in verse 21 no doubt comes as a response to Jesus’ teaching on reconciliation in verses 15-20. As we shall now notice, Jesus reminds his disciples of the value of a single soul and, like a sheep, the erring must be sought and saved. In reality the instruction that Jesus gives on dealing with a sinning brother is simply a practical application of the parable he has just completed (vss. 10-14).
Mike Criswell
mikecriswell@sbcglobal.net