quote:

---

Anyway, I'm not sure I understand what you (1Way) are referring to here. I'm trying, but it escapes me. Help.

---

1. God is the wisest, most loving, righteous, nicest being ever/no one can be nicer than God



2. Sin, evil and error happens, so believers are forced to respond to these unpleasant realities



3. Some believers understand and respect God's ways for handling such things



4. ... Others are not so humble and godly



5. So that if a saint righteously judges against an obviously ungodly sinner, the nicer than God folk will tend to be too forgiving and too accepting and too nice



6. ... towards the evil doer, ... but towards the righteous saint, they will judge against them simply for judging against the wicked, often even exclaiming, judge not!



7. So while on one hand they love and accept the homosexual or pedophile for example, on the other hand they draw a bead on the righteous Christian who opposes that which is evil and sinful

quote:

---

Originally posted by 1way

moon river j and or Jo-Anne

What is the appropriate call sign...

(Jo-Anne) see above

You said [quote]Anyway, I'm not sure I understand what either you or 1-way are referring to here. I'm trying, but it escapes me. Help.

---

1. God is the wisest, most loving, righteous, nicest being ever/no one can be nicer than God


(Jo-Anne) That I knew, but go on...


2. Sin, evil and error happens, so believers are forced to respond to these unpleasant realities


(Jo-Anne) unfortunately, but definitely


3. Some believers understand and respect God's ways for handling such things

(Jo-Anne) and some don't (sadly)


4. ... Others are not so humble and godly[/*
   
   (Jo-Anne) I've seen that now and then (understatement)
   
   
5. So that if a saint righteously judges against an obviously ungodly sinner, the nicer than God folk will tend to be too forgiving and too accepting and too nice


(Jo-Anne) But, is it really our place to judge? What does that accomplish. Some things are black and white (like evil), but a lot is not. (that was not a great sample of my poetry by the way, and another reason why I don't like rhyming).


6. ... towards the evil doer, ... but towards the righteous saint, they will judge against them simply for judging against the wicked, often even exclaiming, judge not!


(Jo-Anne) I think I would probably be exclaiming, "How can we love them?"

[*]So while on one hand they love and accept the homosexual or pedophile for example, on the other hand they draw a bead on the righteous Christian who opposes that which is evil and sinful

quote:

---

Originally posted by PotOnWheel

I seem to remember 1-Way telling Semeia that the Beatitudes do not apply anymore.

---

quote:

---

The man owed a whole lot of money. Such might have been words of Jesus in his parable of the unthankful servant, if he had been telling it today. The parable deals with the question of forgiveness from the standpoint of a debt that was owed. This parable, along with the other passages in which Matthew deals with forgiveness are critical to a proper understanding of Matthew's gospel. Because little has been written on Matthew's understanding of this concept, this paper will endeavor to examine the major passages in which the motif occurs, and offer a proposition based upon the exegesis of these passages.

Matthew's Use of the Word aphes

Certainly one cannot properly understand a motif by examining only the words used for that motif (i.e., the study must be larger than just a word study). However, an examination of how Matthew uses the word translated 'forgive' will provide helpful background information for the examination.

Word Use Statistics

The word which is translated 'forgive' (aphes) occurs in Matthew 47 times. This is more than any in other book of the NT and a much higher number of uses than in any of the other synoptics. However, not all of these uses carry the meaning 'to forgive'. The word in can have meanings as broad as to let go; to send away, to remit, cancel or pardon; to leave; and to let go, tolerate. Of these 47 uses, 17 have the meaning of 'forgive' or 'pardon' (Mt. 6:12, 14, 15; 9:2, 5, 6; 12:31, 32; 18:21,27, 32, 35). There is also one use of the noun form of the word in 26:28.

Importance of Forgiveness in Matthew

That forgiveness is an important concept in the gospel is shown by two things. First, by Matthew's statements as to why Jesus came and died and second, by the implications which follow from the destruction of the temple.

At the beginning of Matthew's gospel Matthew states that an angel came and told Joseph that a son was to be born and that "for he will save his people from their sins" (1:21). This saving of his people from sin is a clear foreshadowing of the forgiveness that Jesus would offer to those who would follow him. This foreshadowing is more clearly brought out in 26:28 where Jesus says "for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for the many for the forgiveness of sins" . Thus at the beginning and near the end of his gospel, Matthew states that Jesus came and died for the purpose of the forgiveness of sin.

To these specific statements about the purpose of Jesus arrival and death must be added the tension that was felt by the Jewish population at the destruction of the temple. Whether Matthew is writing after the destruction of the temple or not, many of those reading the gospel are reading it after this event and thus feel the tension that exists as a result of having to rethink their methods for gaining atonement and achieving forgiveness.

When the above facts are added to the seventeen times that Matthew uses aphes in the sense of 'forgive' it is clear that the writer is very concerned with forgiveness.

A Setting Forth of the Important Passages

The seventeen times that Matthew uses 'forgive' occur in four separate contexts. In this section of the paper, the passages will simply be set out, with pertinent exegesis to follow in the next section.

The first passage is the forgiveness clause of the Lord's prayer where Matthew, in an important redaction states that "And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors; And lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil. For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your tresspasses." (6:12-15) This passage is very significant in an understanding of Matthew's view of forgiveness, and must be dealt with carefully to avoid the Lord's stinging rebuke; "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; (5:19, NASB).

The second context in which the forgiveness motif is found is in the early part of chapter nine. Here Christ is forgiving the lame man and to prove that he is forgiven, he heals him. This is one of the two cases in the New Testament "when Jesus explicitly forgives someone's sin" (the other is in (Luke 7:48).

The third context in which forgiveness appears is that of the unforgivable sin which is mentioned in 12:31-32. This is a difficult passage to interpret but several insights will be drawn in the exegesis portion of the paper.

The fourth and longest context in which Matthew deals with forgiveness occurs in Matthew 18. This chapter deals with three different aspects of forgiveness. The first occurs when Jesus tells his disciples about how to handle the problem of a brother that has sinned against you. The second, when Peter asks how often he should forgive that brother. The last, occurs when Jesus tells the story of the unthankful servant.

Thus, Matthew's gospel has a number of important pericopes that deal with forgiveness. These passages will now be dealt with closely in an attempt to show that for Matthew, people show that they have been forgiven, by acting in a manner that is consistent with a forgiven person. This conclusion will be shown through the setting forth of three important facts. First, that for Matthew, forgiveness is reciprocal. Second, that forgiveness presupposes repentance and third, that forgiveness must never be taken for granted.

For Matthew, Forgiveness is Reciprocal

The Forgiveness Clause of the Lord's Prayer

Matthew's version of the Lord's prayer ends with a very significant redaction by Matthew. Matthew states that if we do not forgive others, we will not be forgiven by the Heavenly Father. The converse is also stated, that is, if we forgive others we will be forgiven. Does Matthew mean that one merits forgiveness as a result of forgiving others? It is tempting to freight back in all of the systematic theology on the forgiveness of God that is taught in the rest of the New Testament. However, because this is a paper on Matthew's view of forgiveness, this cannot be done. Thus, the question stands; 'Does Matthew intend to say that one must forgive in order to merit the forgiveness of God?'

In answer to this question one must answer an emphatic 'Yes and No'! Yes, in that Matthew does not intend for his redaction in verses fourteen and fifteen to be softened. When he makes the statement "For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your tresspasses," he means it. That is, Matthew means to say that if a person does not forgive others, he will not be forgiven. While the evangelical Protestant may not be comfortable calling that merit, the statements of Matthew himself must not be muted.

On the other hand, a case can be made that Matthew redacted this passage in a particular manner in order to avoid suggesting that the forgiveness of others actually places God in a position of having to forgive us. Matthew takes this passage from Mark 11:25. Mark has this statement in a totally different context, [6] and has some interesting differences from Matthew. The most interesting one is that Mark actually says "and whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone; so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your tresspasses." The "hina" [so that] clause is very strong in Mark, and it seems as if Matthew backs off a little by using the "ean" with the subjunctive [if you forgive...]. Thus one could argue that Matthew's redaction of Mark suggests (because "ean" with the subjunctive is only a little softer) that he wanted to avoid a misunderstanding that is possible in reading the text of Mark.

How then is this passage to be understood? First, the forgiveness by the Father is to be taken in eschatological terms. That is that final forgiveness "comes at the final judgement." [7] Thus, for Matthew, no one is fully forgiven until the final eschaton. Second, Matthew simply could not conceive of a forgiven person who did not forgive others. For Matthew, the fact that one did not forgive others, showed that he had not been forgiven. This is shown by the parable of the unthankful servant.

The Parable of the Unthankful Servant

This parable raises a number of questions. There is the question of context. Why does Christ tell Peter to forgive an unlimited number of times (seventy times seven) and then tell a story about a king-who represents the Father-who only forgives once and then takes that forgiveness back? There is the question of the taking back of forgiveness. How is it that the man is cleared of his debt and then this forgiveness is taken away? Does God give his forgiveness and then take it back? There is the question of the size of the debt and whether or not it would have been possible to owe this much money. This is not the point of the parable, and the size of the debt (equivalent to the national debt today) is not a mistake on the part of Matthew but is an exaggeration that Jesus expects his hearers to laugh at, particularly when the man asks for more time to pay. [9]

Once the real point of the parable is understood, many of these questions resolve themselves. The point that Jesus is making with this story is that in the eschaton, if a disciple has not forgiven others, he will not be forgiven. Matthew's 'Christianity' has much to do with how one acts. [10] Jesus is pointing out here that it matters very little what one might say, if they are not acting in a manner that is consistent with a forgiven person, they are not, and will not be forgiven. Thus, final forgiveness, is yet to be obtained. That is why Jesus "sees no contradiction between the acts of the king and God's acts, and neither should we." [11]

For Matthew, merit and forgiveness are inextricably tied together. While it should be said that "God's forgiveness although it cannot be merited, must be received, and it cannot be received by those without the will to forgive others." [12] It should also be said that Matthew's words are very strong, they should not be muted by our own preconceptions about what he ought to say, based upon our systematic theology.

Thus, it is clear that for Matthew, forgiveness is reciprocal. The person who does not forgive others will not be forgiven. This may be a frightening idea to some in evangelical Christianity. It should be.

Is the Christian then bound to forgive anyone, regardless of how often and how heinously they sin against her? This is the second point of proof for the above-mentioned proposition. A truly forgiven person not only forgives others, but also repents and seeks to make atonement when he wrongs another.

Forgiveness is Conditioned Upon Repentance

This may be the most controversial section of the paper. The question of the relationship of forgiveness and repentance in Matthew has not been considered carefully from a theological prospective. The larger question of whether Christ calls his followers to forgive an unrepentant brother is a significant one. [13] The query has received a variety of answers. In general these answers have fallen into two categories. Most popular level books that consider this dilemma follow the advice given by Louis Smedes in his work Forgive and Forget [14]. In Chapter 7 "Forgiving People who do not Care" Smedes confronts the question of the forgiveness of an unrepentant person. He concludes that

Realism, it seems to me, nudges us toward forgiving people who hurt us whether or not they repent for doing it. . . . We need to forgive the unrepentant for our own sake. [15]
He quotes a document called 'Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs' (unfortunately with no footnote) as saying

if a man sin against thee . . . if he repent and confess, forgive him . . . but if he be shameless, and persisteth in his wrongdoing even so forgive him from the heart, and leave to God the avenging. [16]
More technical works that deal with this problem seem to take the opposite approach. These works may be represented by C. F. D. Moule who succinctly states

That forgiveness is conditioned by repentance is true, because reconciliation is a personal relationship, and cannot be achieved without responsiveness on both sides of the relationship. [17]
Does the fact that writers disagree on this problem leave the question of the forgiveness of an unrepentant brother or sister open to interpretation? I believe that a careful examination of the texts will show that it is not only unwise, but also unscriptural to forgive an unrepentant person. This analysis will take the form of three arguments from Matthew's gospel.

The Argument from the Conditional Sentence

The text of 18:15 states a command followed by a conditional sentence. "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone." This command indicates that it is incumbent upon the person who has been offended to go to the offender and tell him his fault in a private manner. The fact that this is a private affair indicates, or at least implies, that the sin is known only to a small (perhaps only two) number of people.

The conditional sentence is quite straightforward. Christ says that if your brother hears you (note that Luke uses the word 'repent' which may help to understand what Matthew meant by 'hear') [18] that you have gained a brother. The clear implication of the condition is that if the offender does not hear you, you have not gained a brother. The offense simply cannot be overlooked. Otherwise, there would be no reason for going to the person in the first place.

The Argument from Church Discipline

Christ does not leave the question hanging about what one should do if the person does not repent he answers it very clearly. The interesting thing is that if the offender does not repent, the offended party is not commanded by Christ to forgive him anyway "for his own sake" (to use Smedes language). Quite the contrary, he tells the offended person to continue in the procedure with the hope of obtaining repentance. While the offence was once private, it now becomes known to a somewhat larger number of people. The Lord commands the offended person not to forget about the offense, but to take two or three witnesses with him to see the offender again. To simply let it go is to disobey the command of the Lord.

If after being visited by several people, along with the offended party, the offender still does not repent, he is to be treated like "a Gentile and a tax collector". That is he or she is to be turned out of the community. There are several important implications of this argument.

First, the continuation of Church discipline indicates that the offender has not been forgiven. If the above analysis on the nature of forgiveness is correct (i.e., that forgiveness 'wipes away' the debt, never to be brought up again) then a forgiven person cannot be disciplined for the offense which he is forgiven of. Taylor states that

When it is said that the wrongdoer must be forgiven 'until seventy times seven' (Mt. xviii. 22, cf. Lk. xvii. 3f), the injunction is that, because of his repentance, grounds of offence are repeatedly to be set aside; they do not count against him. [19]
Thus the discipline continues from a private matter, to a public censure precisely because the offender is not forgiven. He is unforgiven not because forgiveness is not offered to him, but because he will not repent and, by making matters right, accept the offer. Thus to forgive an unrepentant offender is to directly disobey the command of the Lord about church discipline.

Second, this passage indicates in addition to the fact that the offender is not forgiven, that the positive obligation to forgive is not absolute and invariable, since that would destroy discipline. . . . The individual is obliged to forgive if the offender repents (and, obviously, apologizes). [20]

Thus the command to forgive a person who has offended you is conditioned upon that person's repentance. To believe otherwise is to be unable to exercise discipline.

Third, the passage indicates that the person who refuses to repent of his wrongdoing shows that she is not a part of the Christian community. For Matthew "the notion of an unrepentant Christian is an oxymoron. . . . It is scandalous-and, for early Christians, virtually unthinkable-that God's forgiveness would not induce lifelong repentance." [21] The Lord's command to send such people out of the community is a harsh one. These offenders are being told by that action that their behavior has excluded them, and that they are no longer a part of the Christian church. While this statement would have been far more serious in Matthew's day than in ours (there was not another Baptist church down the street that would be happy to have a new member), even today it ought to be a very serious matter.

This excommunication, or putting of a person out of the church and thus outside the Christian community, is done for one reason and with one hope. The reason is, quite simply, a failure to repent. The result that is hoped for is repentance. Church discipline always hopes to restore the fallen person back into the community of believers.

Richard Swinburne, in his work Responsibility and Atonement, gives a philosophical analysis of this question of repentance and forgiveness. He comes down very clearly and forcefully when he says

Indeed not merely is it ineffective but it is bad, in the case of serious acts, for the victim to treat the acts as not having been done, in the absence of some atonement at least in the form of an apology from the wrongdoer. [22]
He goes on to argue that the forgiving of the unrepentant

involves your failing to treat me seriously, to take seriously my attitude towards you expressed in my action. Thereby it trivializes human relationships, for it supposes that good human relations can exist when we do not take each other seriously. [23]
Thus, the implications of the passage on church discipline are clear. "By hurting you, I put myself in a moral situation somewhat like the legal situation of a person who owes money. The wrong needs righting." [24] When a person refuses to attempt to right that wrong, the show themselves to be unforgiven, and as a result of that they must be placed outside the community. This helps to protect the members of the community from further harm, as well as (hopefully) show the offender the seriousness of his action.

The Argument from the Exclusion From the Kingdom

The third argument which shows that repentance must proceed forgiveness stems from the fact that Jesus excluded from the kingdom those who refused to repent. In 21:31-32 Jesus is speaking to the scribes and pharisees who have given him so much trouble in Matthew's gospel. He says to them that "Trult, I say to you, the tax collectors and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you." He then goes on to explain to them why it is that they will not be a part of the kingdom. It is quite simply because

"For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the harlots believed him; and even when you saw it, you did not afterward repent and believe." (21:32)
Thus, the exclusion from the kingdom of God happens as a direct result of the fact that they had refused to repent and believe. The refusal to repent of a wrongdoing is a serious offence. It should be treated as such by the Christian community. For the protection of those who are within, and the awakening of those who are unrepentant, the offender cannot be forgiven and must be put out of the Christian community.

Jonathan Edwards in his sermon on the "Nature and End of Excommunication" [25] seeks to show those who are proper subjects of excommunication. He states that members of the church become visibly wicked either by "gross sin" or by remaining "impenitent in their sins after proper means [are] used to reclaim them." Edwards goes on to state that "if strict discipline were maintained in the church, it would in all probability be one of the most powerful means of conviction and conversion towards those who are without." One might ask what the "proper means" are that are to be used to reclaim the sinner. For Matthew, the obvious answer is the steps that are laid out by the Lord. If we forgive an unrepentant person rather than follow these steps, we lose this powerful means of conviction and conversion.

An Excursus on Two Problem Passages

There are two particularly troublesome passages for the position outlined above. One is found in Matthew's gospel and one in the gospel of Luke. The first passage is found in Luke 23:34 where Christ utters these words from the cross: "Father forgive them; for they know what they do.."

At first glance this passage would seem to indicate that Christ is unilaterally forgiving those who are unrepentant. What is one to make of this statement of Christ in terms of the above analysis? There are at least four reasons why this passage should not be seen as an absolute teaching on the forgiveness of a brother:

First of all these people make no claim to be Christians. Therefore Christ's words in Matthew 18 may not apply to this specific situation.

Secondly this is a specific salvivic event which occurred only once. One must be careful not to draw conclusions which may not apply to the situation as it exists today.

Thirdly, it seems, based upon the statement of Christ, that these men did not know that they were killing an innocent man. Christ asks that they be forgiven because they did not realize what they were doing. That is, they thought there were obeying those in authority over them.

Fourthly and perhaps most importantly, there is a very serious textual problem with this passage. The Greek Text of the UBS3 gives this passage a "C" rating. Metzger, in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, somewhat equivocally argues for the saying's authenticity, by stating

The absence of these words from such early and diverse witnesses as p75 B D* W Q ita,d copsa,bo is most impressive and can scarcely be explained as a deliberate excision by copyists who, considering the fall of Jerusalem to be proof that God had not forgiven the Jews, could not allow it to appear that the prayer of Jesus had remained unanswered. At the same time, the logion, though probably not a part of the original Gospel of Luke, bears self-evident tokens of its dominical origin, and was retained, within double square brackets . . . [26]

Thus the above arguments show very clearly that one cannot argue for forgiveness without repentance based upon the Lord's statement from the cross. The second troublesome passage is found in Matthew 9. It is the story of the healing of the lame man and the problem is that the man is healed without any indication of repentance. This is a significant incident, because "only at one other time in the canonical Gospels does Jesus explicitly forgive someone's sin." [27] Thus the question of why Jesus forgives the paralytic without any indication of repentance is important. There are several potential responses:

First, this is an argument from silence (on both sides) one cannot be sure about whether or not the man was repentant, because the scripture is silent on this point.

Second, the man had faith, which may include repentance. When the text says that "When Jesus saw their faith [pistin autoun]" the "aoutoun" "here includes the faith of the paralytic." [28] Thus the man could have been repentant, and since his faith was genuine (it was seen by Christ) it almost certainly included repentance.

Because neither of the above passages disproves the point, the above contention seems to stand under close analysis. An unrepentant person should not be forgiven. Should the Christian see this doctrine as an excuse to harbor bitterness and hatred over past deeds through which they have been harmed? Certainly not! The attitude of Christ teaches that one must always be willing to forgive the repentant sinner. That is, that the offer of forgiveness must always be open to the unrepentant brother, in hope that they will one day see the error of their way.

The lack of repentance on the part of one person must never be the excuse for sin in another. Therefore one must never harbor hatred or bitterness. The distinction must be made, however, between harboring hatred or bitterness, and reconciliation. One does not need to be reconciled in order not to have bitterness. Clearly God does not have sinful bitterness, yet He is not reconciled to unrepentant sinners.

Reformer John Calvin [29] states that there are three purposes for Church discipline: The first is that "they who lead a filthy and infamous life may not be called Christians, to the dishonor of God, as if his holy church were a conspiracy of wicked and abandoned men." The second is that "the good be not corrupted by the constant company of the wicked, as commonly happens." The third "purpose is that those overcome by shame for their baseness have begun to repent." They who "under gentler treatment would have become more stubborn . . . ". All three of these purposes, but particularly the third one is circumvented by a Christian, or a church forgiving a person who is unrepentant. While the offer of forgiveness stands, it must be conditioned upon repentance by the offender.

Forgiveness Should Never Be Taken for Granted

The obvious implication from the above analysis is that forgiveness in Matthew has a great deal to do with how one acts. If one does not act like a forgiven person (e.g., does not forgive others, does not repent) then she is not a forgiven person, no matter what she may say.


Matthew points out that there is one unforgivable sin (12:31-32). While Davies and Allison "remain stumped" [30] on this passage, it seems clear that the sin is a blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. The scribes and pharisees knew that Christ was the messiah and yet still attempted to destroy him. They stated that he cast out demons by the prince of demons, yet they knew that his work was of the Holy Spirit. This total disregard for the truth of the Sprit is the sin that Matthew points to.

Matthew's entire gospel desires to teach its readers to look carefully at themselves and their works. Matthew knows nothing of a Christianity that does not expose itself through its lifestyle. He implies that those whose lives do not match their claims are 'hypocrites' and are not a part of the kingdom of God. [31] Matthew desires that all of his readers carefully examine their lives to see if they are acting like forgiven people.

Conclusion

Matthew's Christianity is a far cry from much of the 'easy believeism' that exists in the United States today. Matthew knows nothing of a forgiveness without repentance, a change of heart without a change of life, or a Christian who acts like an unbeliever. For him, how one acts shows who one really is.

This paper has attempted to show that for Matthew, forgiveness is reciprocal. That is one is forgiven on the basis of how one forgives others. The unforgiving person is the unforgiven person. It has also attempted to show that repentance must be prior to forgiveness. A person who will not repent of his wrongdoing, either against God or against another human being, shows that he is unforgiven.

Lastly, the paper has attempted to show that no one should take forgiveness for granted. One cannot simply say a few words, and never allow Christianity to affect their lives, and yet still claim to be forgiven. That person is like the man who owed ten thousand talents, he seemed forgiven, yet in the end he ends up with the torturers. Matthew would ask each reader of his gospel to carefully consider the lesson of that parable, and the lesson of his gospel. Forgiven people are different. The forgiveness that they have received has changed their lives. Matthew's gospel offers stern warnings to those who would soften the commands of the Lord.

Appendix 

Ref....Source....Form....Meaning.....Connotations.....# 
6:12 TQ aphes Forgive We are forgiven as we forgive 1 
6:12 TQ aphaekamen Forgive   We are forgiven as we forgive  2 
6:14 RM aphaete Forgive   We are forgiven as we forgive  3 
6:14 RM aphaesei Forgive  We are forgiven as we forgive   4 
6:15 RM aphaete Forgive   We are forgiven as we forgive  5 
6:15 RM aphaesei Forgive  We are forgiven as we forgive   6 
9:2 TMK aphientai Forgive  We are forgiven as we forgive   7 
9:5 TMK aphientai Forgive  We are forgiven as we forgive   8 
9:6 TMK aphienai Forgive  We are forgiven as we forgive   9 
12:31 TMK aphethaesetai Forgive   We are forgiven as we forgive  10 
12:31 RM aphethesetai Forgive   We are forgiven as we forgive  11 
12:32 RM aphethaesetai Forgive   We are forgiven as we forgive  12 
12:32 TMK aphethaesetai Forgive  We are forgiven as we forgive   13 
18:21 RM aphaesou Forgive  We are forgiven as we forgive   14 
18:27 RM aphaekev Forgive/Release   We are forgiven as we forgive  15 
18:32 RM aphaeka Forgive   We are forgiven as we forgive  16 
18:35 RM aphaete Forgive   We are forgiven as we forgive  17 
26:28  aphesin Forgiveness Noun form of the word -- used only here by Matthew 18

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PotOnWheel

1Way, I haven't read this. But it seems topertain to your topic. You might want to read it through.

> Quodlibet Journal: Volume 1 Number 5, August 1999
http://www.Quodlibet.net

---

quote:

---

Also, while I do agree with 1way that the "judge not" thing is taken waaaay out of context much of the time, I do not affirm, as the dispensationalist does, that the Sermon on the Mount in any way does not apply to us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jefscott

John,

quote:

---

Also, while I do agree with 1way that the "judge not" thing is taken waaaay out of context much of the time, I do not affirm, as the dispensationalist does, that the Sermon on the Mount in any way does not apply to us.

---

I'm a HYPER-dispensationalist, but don't hold that view. In my opinion, what Christ is saying is that the Law had a much higher moral standard (in it's purely moral injunctions) than the legalists realized. As to the "judge not" passage, it seems clear to me that the only warning there is about judging hypocritically. For by what measure one mete's out judgement, it will be dished back in full measure!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Earp

That was an excellent article, PoW. Thanks.

John

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jefscott

1WAY,

See my debate with Larris about the antinomian issue. I agree exactly with what you said. I just don't think it implies God will allow a "son" to live ANY OLE' WAY without discipline. Larris (and I think John) was trying to suggest my view leads to a free-for-all. This I deny.

---

Agape (godly love), is the sin of moral hypocrisy, if you do not abhor evil and cling to good.

quote:

---

Maybe you could come up with a "self-test" to see if "you" qualify as a "nicer than God" kinda person?

And I ask this sincerely 1Way, but does this come from some hurt? Perhaps I am still not understanding. Can you give me some examples?

---

quote:

---

(1Way)
1. God is the wisest, most loving, righteous, nicest being ever/no one can be nicer than God

(Jo-Anne) That I knew, but go on...

(1way)
2. Sin, evil and error happens, so believers are forced to respond to these unpleasant realities

(Jo-Anne) unfortunately, but definitely

---

quote:

---

(1Way)
5. So that if a saint righteously judges against an obviously ungodly sinner, the nicer than God folk will tend to be too forgiving and too accepting and too nice

(Jo-Anne) But, is it really our place to judge? What does that accomplish. Some things are black and white (like evil), but a lot is not. (that was not a great sample of my poetry by the way, and another reason why I don't like rhyming).

---

Judge with righteous judgment

Let love be without hypocrisy, abhor evil and cling to good

Judge not ... you hypocrite, first judge yourself so that you may have the righteous grounds to judge others

We will judge the angels and the world, how much more things in this life

Don't give your pearls to swine, nor dogs

The fool says in his heart, there is no God

quote:

---

(1Way)
6. ... towards the evil doer, ... but towards the righteous saint, they will judge against them simply for judging against the wicked, often even exclaiming, judge not!

(Jo-Anne) I think I would probably be exclaiming, "How can we love them?"

---

quote:

---

(Jo-Anne) "Draw a bead" eh? Sounds like you've experienced this? I promise, if I turn out to be one of those "nicer than God" folk that you're talking about - I won't avoid you.

---

quote:

---

(1Way)
But the cool thing is, they still can't hide it when they finally respond. They will not clearly judge against the wicked, that is a huge clue, then they get irritated if the righteous do judge the wicked. Withdrawl from the righteous judgers is the only safe haven for the judge nots. But to no lasting avail, they can't escape God's notice.

(Jo-Anne) None of us escape "God's notice." What do you mean (example) that they will "not clearly judge against the wicked" ? Perhaps you are noticing a different personality type, or someone with a gift and misunderstanding that? Just a thought.

---

Agape (godly love), is the sin of moral hypocrisy, if you do not abhor evil and cling to good.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 1way

Agape (godly love), is the sin of moral hypocrisy, if you do not abhor evil and cling to good.

Jo-Anne - The whole issue of being

Nicer than God

or

Not nicer than God

is understood by paying careful attention to the character and attributes of God, ,,, all of them, as well as God's teachings to us about how to respond to evil and sin.

You said

quote:

---

Maybe you could come up with a "self-test" to see if "you" qualify as a "nicer than God" kinda person?

And I ask this sincerely 1Way, but does this come from some hurt? Perhaps I am still not understanding. Can you give me some examples?

---

A test sounds great. I'll see what I can do, but it may take some time, but, I think I could do it.

Joy, pain, love, evil, you name it. Go to the bible first, then examine yourself second, lean not on your own understanding. Sure, you stand up for what is right, people reject you for doing so. Homosexuality is a great example because of the teaching in God's word to excommunicate one who claims to be a brother and is engaged in gross sexual immorality. Conversely, you are being nicer than God if you are in favor of not excommunicating them.

You said

quote:

---

(1Way)
1. God is the wisest, most loving, righteous, nicest being ever/no one can be nicer than God

(Jo-Anne) That I knew, but go on...

(1way)
2. Sin, evil and error happens, so believers are forced to respond to these unpleasant realities

(Jo-Anne) unfortunately, but definitely

---

This is a typical response, but not altogether immaterial or unimportant. Allow me some "fine tuning". I believe that the more one becomes aligned with God's righteousness and justice, the more we feel fortunate and blessed to be able to deal with evil and sin and error. Were we happy and glad to be set from all that? Then of course we want to help others have their freedom in Christ too.

God made an entire institution of wrath and vengeance, it's called (national) governments. He calls them His minister for good for our sakes, but if you do evil, be afraid. So, to the extent that government fights against lawlessness and crime (evil wickedness), to that extent they are being God's ministers of wrath. And guess what? The next time you consider the Police, and how it is that they risk their lives everyday "primarily" to oppose the wicked, you are seeing God's minister in action protecting the masses from lawlessness! So, maybe you personally are not going to fight against the terrorists, but you most certainly are glad if the police stop an assailant who would otherwise serve to harm you or your loved ones.

We should remember to be happy and thankful and even rejoice for the righteous vengeance against all evil doers. And remember, there was a time in history when God forbade man to put to death capitol offenders, many right dividers understand that to be a period of manmade government or conscience. A wonderful truth for that period from the fall to the flood is that God showed very clearly what it would be like if man were left to his own devices, God barely mentioned laws and commands such man was left to govern himself, yet the end result of such a system was terrible wickedness, so God rightly committed genocide and started all over with Noah. Unsaved man needs godly law to restrain against lawlessness and unchecked wickedness.

You posted

quote:

---

(1Way)
5. So that if a saint righteously judges against an obviously ungodly sinner, the nicer than God folk will tend to be too forgiving and too accepting and too nice

(Jo-Anne) But, is it really our place to judge? What does that accomplish. Some things are black and white (like evil), but a lot is not. (that was not a great sample of my poetry by the way, and another reason why I don't like rhyming).

---

Yes, it is our place to judge, well, let me qualify that. Are you a Christian? That is primary, then after that it's, are you awake? And that's about it. Yes, you are supposed to judge, it is our place to do that. As an introductory offer, consider these teachings.

Judge with righteous judgment

Let love be without hypocrisy, abhor evil and cling to good

Judge not ... you hypocrite, first judge yourself so that you may have the righteous grounds to judge others

We will judge the angels and the world, how much more things in this life

Don't give your pearls to swine, nor dogs

The fool says in his heart, there is no God

Judging against the wicked is a deeply godly thing to do. To not judge against the wicked is a deeply ungodly thing to do.

So what does judging accomplish? In my book, obeying God accomplishes the greatest good imaginable. For example, when was the last time you really judged against someone? I mean really judged them in a harsh way? You know what is one of the most loving and caring things you can say to a person who is not yet saved? Tell then that unless they turn to God and get saved, that they are condemned already, and you are trying to warn them ahead of time because if they do not change, come judgment day, YOU will be there judging against them for eternal damnation!

Judgment and condemnation is the nature of the Law, and we use it against all who are under it, that is, the unsaved world. So, the first step in the road to Romans is to let them know they are condemned already, they need to feel their guilt, you should be ready and willing to judge against them until they can see it. If you say, no, your not one to judge, I love and accept you, but God condemns you, then you are going against God's judgment which is against them! You are plainly being nicer than God. Now that is not my entire evangelical approach, but the foundation for turning someone to saving faith in Christ most definitely involves making them understand God's judgment, and that it is truly sinful and evil to reject God.

And I wouldn't care much about the effectiveness of the message preached, what good does it do to be judgmental, to faithfully witness the gospel and that if you are not saved, you are righteously condemned already. God was on this Earth, and guess what, He did a pretty good job winning souls, right?, but, MOST people rejected Him, MOST! So I do not think God is very concerned about popularity and such, He says do what it takes to win even just the one, and the heavens would rejoice. Do right, and risk the consequences.

quote:

---

(1Way)
6. ... towards the evil doer, ... but towards the righteous saint, they will judge against them simply for judging against the wicked, often even exclaiming, judge not!

(Jo-Anne) I think I would probably be exclaiming, "How can we love them?"

---

And that hits hard at a terrible reality. And that is that when believers see godliness in action, they would rather see love instead. There simply is no such dichotomy between being godly and being loving.

You said it so simple, and perhaps in a less contrasting way than some, but there simply is no disparity between godly judgment and godly love, none. In fact, you can not be loving, UNLESS you are judgmental in opposition against evil! It's a requirement, not an option.

Reconsider Romans 12:9. Abhorring against that which is evil. Abhorring is a harsher more graphic and intense "hatred". There are examples in the OT when God abhors, and it is hideously terrible what happens when God really gets upset and becomes in abhor mode. I'm not nicer than God, and I do not like to even think about what God has done when He is abhorring against evil, terrible(!!!), yuck. So if you want to really become more and more godly, you need to check your love through the righteousness slash justice check of Rom 12:9. If you are found wanting, then your so called "agape" (godly love), risks really being the sin of hypocrisy because of not be just, because of being potentially the sin of hypocrisy.

You said

quote:

---

(Jo-Anne) "Draw a bead" eh? Sounds like you've experienced this? I promise, if I turn out to be one of those "nicer than God" folk that you're talking about - I won't avoid you.

---

Me(?), all the time. Don't worry, you can get in on the action too, trust me, there's plenty of hatred and hypocritical unrighteous animosity out there for 10 or 20 worlds against us Christians, so don't worry, rest assured, there's plenty to go around. (chuckles)

Thanks for extending a personal proximity with me. I take your words of not drawing away in a good way (I think?), even though it was apparently coupled with the intent to put a bead on me(!!!) (chuckles), although I suspect that is the last thing you would want to do. Smile, at least I assume that is what you meant. Read it again, it's pretty funny if you keep in mind the connection involved. LOL

You posted

quote:

---

(1Way)
But the cool thing is, they still can't hide it when they finally respond. They will not clearly judge against the wicked, that is a huge clue, then they get irritated if the righteous do judge the wicked. Withdrawl from the righteous judgers is the only safe haven for the judge nots. But to no lasting avail, they can't escape God's notice.

(Jo-Anne) None of us escape "God's notice." What do you mean (example) that they will "not clearly judge against the wicked" ? Perhaps you are noticing a different personality type, or someone with a gift and misunderstanding that? Just a thought.

---

It's easy, they will typically agree that the sin is wrong (who will deny that), but we should not personally judge against the person for being evil.

Yes, it is true that different factors effect people's reaction to some evil or sin. But God does not teach much political correctness. He teaches, do right, and that's it. Lead by example, and sooner or late the hard headed types may well come around too! But if you do not have sufficient leadership demonstrating godliness, then it becomes that much harder for the masses to know how to respond against sin and evil and wickedness.

So the problem is not that we need to gain a solid understanding for why many people do not judge well, human proneness to error will always be with us this side of heaven, so its more practical to focus on the productive corrective measures of obeying God's word to judge against the wicked. Jesus said, if they hated me, they will hate you, so when you become judgmental against the world for being evil, you will begin to feel more and more what it is like to be Christ like. Redeem the time, be Christlike, judge against some heathen, make a noticeable upstream stand for godliness, judge against the wicked.

Agape (godly love), is the sin of moral hypocrisy, if you do not abhor evil and cling to good.

---

HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD."
21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Am 5:15 Hate evil, love good; Establish justice in the gate. It may be that the LORD God of hosts Will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph.