Far too often, we treat these terms as if they are equals in meaning, or aliens, divorced and antagonistic to each other, instead of treating them as complimenting each other. The purpose of this discourse is an attempt to try and reconcile them and see how they relate to each other.
Far too often, we treat these terms as if they are equals in meaning, or aliens, divorced and antagonistic to each other, instead of treating them as complimenting each other. The purpose of this discourse is an attempt to try and reconcile them and see how they relate to each other.
In Luke 17, Jesus taught that forgiving without limit is the ‘new pattern’ of the kingdom.
“If your brother sins against you seven times a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.” (Luke 17:4)
But what does this actually mean in practical terms? It seems to me that there are at least three different basic contexts in which we need to forgive, and what ‘forgiveness without limit’ will look like in each context: i) forgiveness where there’s repentance, ii) forgiveness where there’s no repentance, and iii) forgiveness when the victim is someone else.
The first context is the specific situation Jesus addresses in Luke 17, and that is where your brother (or sister) repents. In that context, Jesus’ command is simple: forgive! However, there are two further questions we need to answer if we are to understand what this looks like in practical terms: what is repentance? And what is forgiveness?
What is repentance?
‘Repentance’ is much more than saying sorry. We all know of people who apologise for something they have done, but their apology turns out to be just empty words; they continue to behave in exactly the same way as before. This is not repentance. Repentance is about a change in direction. It is seen in a changed life.
Therefore someone who says, “I repent” is someone who is committed to fixing up what was broken, to putting right what was wrong. If that is what is going on, says Jesus, we must forgive them.
Of course, sometimes people can have the best intentions of putting right what was wrong, and can even make a start on it, but then ‘old habits creep back and they hurt us again. But Jesus says, if they return to you a second time (or a third time, or a million time!) in repentance, you must forgive them. This is after all exactly what God does for us. So why should we treat a brother or sister believer differently?
What is forgiveness?
This, however, begs the next question: what is forgiveness?
As children, we were all taught that ‘to forgive is to forget.’ In a sense, this is not a bad start. Psalm 103 says of God’s forgiveness:
“He does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities. For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is his love for those who fear him; as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us.” (Psalm 103:10-12)
God has put our sins behind him; he has chosen not to treat us as we deserve. Forgiveness means putting aside judgment.
However, we need to be careful here. It’s as important to understand what forgiveness isn’t, as it is to understand what it is. Put simply, forgiveness is NOT reconciliation. Forgiveness is, of course, necessary for reconciliation, but it’s not the same thing.
In other words, when your brother sins against you, and your relationship is thereby damaged, forgiveness is the first step towards restoring the relationship to its original state, but it’s by no means the end of the journey.
Forgiveness is the launch pad for a whole lifetime of God’s working in us, transforming us to be the people he created us to be – the people who were twisted and defaced and deformed by the Fall, but who are being remade and transformed into the likeness of Christ (Colossians 3:5-10). The end goal of God’s work in us is not seen in the sweet moment of forgiveness, but on the last day, at the sweet moment of all, when we are presented to his Son as the Bride, pure and blameless in every way.
So when Jesus calls on us to forgive a brother who has repented, he is not imagining that everything will immediately be rosy; that things will automatically go back to the way they were before. Forgiveness is about setting aside judgment; reconciliation is a whole other story.
The fact that your brother is repentant – that he is committed to putting right what was wrong – is a great start, and gives you both something to work with. There can be great hope for the relationship in that case. And it all begins with repentance on his part and forgiveness on yours: when he says, “I want to make it right,” and you reply, “I give up every claim to revenge; I accept you as a brother.”
What if they break the law?
This raises the question of how we are to respond when there is no repentance. But before we consider the question, there is one other, more extreme case that we need to consider of forgiveness where there’s repentance: what if, in sinning against me, my brother also breaks the law? If he is repentant, does my obligation to forgive also mean an obligation to forego legal recompense?
Once more, we must be clear on what repentance means: it is much more that just saying sorry. Paul had heard the news that the Thessalonians repented:
“They tell how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and the true God and to wait for his Son from heaven” (1 Thessalonians 1:9-10).
Their repentance involved turning away from their old convictions and their old ways of life, and turning towards a new set of beliefs and behaviours; it was a 180 degree change of direction.
So if someone, in sinning, has also broken the law of the land, then repentance will mean seeking to put right not just their relationship with you, but their debt to society as well. Put another way, a thief has sinned against two entities: the victim they robbed, and the society whose laws they broke. And repentance will mean a determination to put both of those relationships right.
This may seem a hard line, but I believe it is the only consistent position to take. A Christian who breaks the law ought to give himself up to the authorities. Until he does so, his repentance is incomplete. Anything less is anti-Christian, because it is anti-repentance.
It may be that the individual who was sinned against chooses to help his repentant brother before the law; he may choose not to press charges, for example. However, repentance means turning around and trying to right what was wrong, so I believe forgiveness would overflow into an act of such compassion only when the spirit of the law has been fulfilled in some other way (the thief has restored what he stole, for example, or it is clear that he would restore it if he could, but it is unable to for one reason or another).
Forgiveness does not mean forcing yourself to pretend that nothing ever happened; it means putting aside vengeance and welcoming with joy the repentant brother as a brother in Christ.
Forgiveness where there’s NO repentance
This then leads us to ask what we should do when there is no repentance. Can we forgive in that situation? Should we even contemplate it?
This is clearly not the situation Jesus was addressing in Luke 17, so we will have to go elsewhere for answers. However, the principles regarding forgiveness that we have seen still apply: namely, that forgiveness is not the same as reconciliation.
One of the passages I have found most helpful in thinking about this kind of situation is 1 Peter 2:21-25 – Peter’s great exposition of the cross:
To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example that you should follow in his steps. “He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.” When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.
One of the biggest issues 1 Peter addresses is the question of how Christians ought to respond to mistreatment. How should we submit to ungodly governments or brutal masters? How should Christian wives submit to unbelieving husbands? How should Christian husband love their (presumably unbelieving) wives?
The centerpiece of Peter’s instruction is the passage about Christ’s unjust suffering quoted above. From this, there are three things to note:
Jesus’ example
One of the things we find here in Peter that we will not find so easily in Paul is the exemplary nature of Jesus’ suffering. That is, his suffering provides an example for us to follow.
But it’s not just the fact of his suffering that is the example for us, as though suffering in itself is noble and good. No! It is Jesus’ attitude to his suffering that we are to emulate, or imitate.
Non-retaliation
This leads us to the second point: Jesus’s non-retaliation approach. What we are to imitate in Jesus is his remarkable restraint; his refusal to strike back, his refusal to revenge, or to assert his rights.
I can’t help but think that as Peter wrote this, he was replaying in his mind the trial of Jesus that he witnessed from a distance:
When he was accused by the chief priests and the elders, he gave no answer. Then Pilate asked him, “Don’t you hear the testimony they are bringing against you?” But Jesus made reply, not even to a single charge – to the great amazement of the governor. (Matthew 27:12-14)
But again, we must realize (as Peter did) that it isn’t non-retaliation per se that counts, Jesus is not a Gandhi-style pacifist.
Confidence in God
The reason Jesus could exhibit such amazing restraint was because of his complete trust in his heavenly Father to right every wrong. Jesus knew he had a role to fulfill – a job to do – and he knew that would involve wicked people doing wicked things to him. But standing over it all was the good and sovereign God, and Jesus knew that he could trust him to balance every ledger and bring justice to every deed.
And so we return to the question of forgiveness when there is no repentance. 1 Peter 2 teaches us to follow Jesus’ example. And Jesus was the one who cried out from the cross, “Father, forgive them” (Luke 23:34). We are still obliged to forgive.
However, the difference is that where there is no repentance, there is no possibility for reconciliation. So we forgive those who sin against us – we put away vengeance, and we leave them in God’s good and sovereign hands – but the relationship remains broken.
In a sense, our forgiveness is no longer an external transaction between us and the person who sinned against us, but it is now an internal transaction between us and God. We say to God, “I leave this person and the righting of any wrongs to you. I trust you will ultimately do what is right and good. As for me, my desire is for his salvation, and so I pray that you will bring him to repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus so that he can escape judgment, as you in your abundant mercy have enabled me to do.”
Once again, on the question of the unrepentant brother’s sin involving a breaking of the law, the same applies as before. Forgiveness puts us under no obligation to subvert the legal process.
In fact, bringing people to temporal justice is an act of love. It does no one any good to be allowed to break the law with impunity; it damages everyone involved: victim, perpetrator, and society as a whole.
So, forgiveness means that while we will call on the courts to enact justice, we must not use the courts to fuel our desire for vengeance. Our ultimate goal is the sinner’s restoration. However, his lack of repentance severely limits the role we can play in this directly. We seek what is best for him through the courts, and we pray for his salvation, entrusting his eternal destiny to God’s mercy and truth.
(watch this space for part II of this article on Friday).
The author, Rev. Dr. Bernard Oliya Suwa, is the Secretary General,Committee for National Healing, Peace and Reconciliation in South Sudan.
BLOG COMMENTS POWERED BY DISQUS
