The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum On Granting Forgiveness

I have a question to pose for discussion.

It says in Luke 17:

3 Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.
4 And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.
5 And the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith.

Are we to forgive people who offend us, but are not willing to "repent" or apologize? Even God requires that we "repent." God requires us to confess our sin (1 Jn 1:9), and then He will be faithful and just to forgive us our sin. God will not forgive anyone who will not acknowledge their sin.

There are people who offend, but are either too insensitive to apologize, or they don't think it necessary. Are we obligated to forgive them?

Tom,

I simply take the text at face value:

1. Rebuke those who offend you with the goal that they will repent. This is the same principle upon which church disciple is established. We are not to harbor resentment, speak of the person's sin(s) behind the offender's back, etc., but rather confront him.
2. Forgiveness is to be anticipated by the one offended and without bounds when repentance is shown. In other words, forgiveness can have no bounds. (cf. Matt 6:14, 15; 1Jh 1:9, 10)
3. Without repentance, forgiveness cannot be offered. We may pray and our Lord did that God will not exact vengeance upon the offender immediately but rather to be long-suffering, yet that justice will be done in the end. (cf. Lk 23:34)

I believe this is what this passage teaches and perhaps that which you have also concluded. Hermeneutically, I see this as being consistent with other similar passages which are more often than not misunderstood. For example, Jh 14:13, 14 when taken in isolation from the rest of Scripture appears to be a carte blanc promise of God to give to the one who prays anything asked for. Yet, the same author, John qualifies this passage in his first Epistle, 1Jh 5:14 by adding that one will be granted what he prays for IF it is asked according to His will.

We may not be able to forgive the offender without the required repentance, but this does not mean we are to harbor resentment and seek revenge upon the unrepentant. We are to "turn the other cheek" in such situations.

Do you have any further thoughts on this? Is this similar to what you have concluded?

In His grace,

Pilgrim,

Thank you for giving thoughtful consideration to my question.

I concur with you comment. I have a situation where I have rebuked the offender, but they do not see their fault and therefore are unapologetic. I have had people tell me that I was obligated to just forgive them, but I don't see it that way in the Scriptures. The Scripture says as often as they repent, I am to forgive. But, without repentance the fellowship just isn't there with this individual. I would like the whole situation to just be forgotten, but without that acknowledgement of wrongdoing, I cannot just restore the relationship. I am praying that the offender with be given a contrite and broken heart.

I thank you for giving me clarity in my mind on this issue. I have been meaning to post this question on here for some time, and I expected to get a good answer, and I have not been disappointed.

Respectfully,
Tom

Mark 9:50 tells us to "Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another" Wisdom tells us that there are times when overlooking an offense may best resolve a breach between brothers. (Proverbs 19:11; 12:16; 17:14; Col. 3:13; I Peter 4:8) This is a form of forgiveness that can bring about peace when it is practiced. There are times when a matter of offense does require an appropriate reproach that has with it the goal that repentance, forgiveness and restoration be prayerfully sought. An appropriate reproach may bring about amazing change to a person's life—breaking sinful habits for instance—and healing to a relationship that should not be broken. We are taught to love one another—deeply from the heart.

Our Lord also reminds us that we must be willing to practice a kind of forgiveness that is similar to how God forgives our sins in Christ Jesus. If our personal holiness is not something that exceeds that of God and yet in Christ we can find forgiveness should we not that much more be willing to humble ourselves and put an offense aside and offer complete forgiveness?

Sometimes we "know not what we do." There are times when we should simply overlook the sins of those who don't know they've sinned against us, but among Christians the more loving thing to do is humbly point out an offense that the other isn't aware he committed. I'm one of those people who never sees the line until I've crossed it. Maybe it's an Aspergers syndrome thing, I dunno... but I have learned to really appreciate rebuke so I can learn from it and not hurt people unintentionally.

But when I am obstinate and refuse to see my sin or acknowledge the other person's hurt, forgiveness is not what I need. What I need then is a swift kick in the britches! And in time, I learn to appreciate it.

Hi,

I'm new here - hope you don't mind me hopping in on this topic. It is one that I've had to study out in dealing with this very issue in my own life.

Forgiveness is conditioned on repentance. Forgiveness may not be granted to another person until he says, "I repent, please forgive me" or words to that effect. Does God forgive us when we don't repent? No. Forgiveness and repentance are always snapped together in the Bible. The offenders failure to repent, however, does not give us the right to become resentful, nor is it a license for self-pity. We must empty the matter from our hearts in prayer, not dwelling on it, giving it entirely to God, before God, not the offender. We must tell God of our willingness to grant him forgiveness and that we want to be reconciled and that we won't sit and brood about how we were wronged. In that sense we forgive him before God, but we cannot grant forgiveness to the offender until he repents. One person can resolve at least one part of the problem right away.
Freeing our hearts from bitterness and resentment towards the offender does not mean that reconciliation has taken place. Reconciliation cannot occur until there is repentance and the following forgiveness.

Forgiveness always involves 3 elements, which can be followed even if the actual forgiveness cannot be granted:

1)A promise to not bring the matter up to you again (except in the matter of church discipline)
2)A promise to not bring it up to other people
3)A promise to not bring it up to ourselves, ie, dwell on it in my own mind.

There is the matter of Matthew 18:15-17, though, that is to be followed if the offense is between two believers. The only time to say that there is nothing more that can be done about the situation is when an unbeliever and a Christian are involved in an impasse. In the case of two believers, the sinning brother should be reproved privately, in a spirit of love and humility. If he refuses to hear, then he should take one or two more brothers/sisters with him. If he still will not hear, he is to be brought before the church. If he refuses to hear the church, he is to be excommunicated, not for the particular sin that he committed, but for his arrogance, his refusal to heed the authority of Jesus Christ, exercised by His church, not for the purpose of "getting rid" of him, but to lead him to repentance.

Looked for a heart smilie but didn't see it.

When I read Jesus' words that if we don't forgive others, God won't forgive us, I take it to mean that if there's anyone I haven't forgiven or am harboring a grudge against, then I'm in danger of my sins not being forgiven.

I've never thought to study it out looking for a reason to justify not forgiving others simply because I'd rather be safe than sorry when it comes to having my sins forgiven.

quigley,

What Matt 6:14, 15 doesn't mean is that if a believer doesn't forgive someone who repents of their sins that our own actual sins aren't forgiven, i.e., covered by the blood of Christ. This would be a direct contradiction of what Scripture teaches concerning the efficacy of Christ's atonement. In Him, ALL; without exception, sins are remitted by Christ's shed blood.

So, what does this mean then that if we do not forgive the sins (aka: debts and trespasses) of others, the Father won't forgive us (believers)? I believe this is referring to sanctification and surely not justification. That is, when someone repents of their sins against us and we don't forgive them as freely as the Father freely forgives us in Christ, there are consequences, e.g., our prayers will not be heard, our consciences will not be appeased when we sin, etc., (cf. 1Jh 1:9, 10). Secondly, a habitually and adamant refusal to forgive men their sins could be an indication that one is not truly in Christ, i.e., the marks of grace, spiritual life are absent. (cf. Jam 2:26). To forgive others their offenses against us is an indication of one's identity as a child of God.

In His grace,

Jacy,

I can tell that you have researched this topic. You have given a comprehensive assessment, and I do appreciate it along with the other fine comments.

I think that we learn a lot of Scriptures by being in certain situations and praying that God will give us the wisdom that we need. Paul said that he had learned to be content in every situation. That word "learned" is key. It's that same with this topic.

For trivial or unintended offenses, we can grant forgiveness without repentance, but for serious offenses, repentance is necessary. Sure, we can forgive everybody of everything, BUT, there will not be a true restoration of fellowship or relationship.

In our family, we have taught our children, that they are obligated to ask for explicit forgiveness, when they sin against another person. Over the years, my wife and I have "learned" that asking for forgiveness, and EXPLICITLY naming the sin, will almost instantly restore the relationship. The Bible says not to "let the sun go down on your wrath," and so we try to keep short accounts with our offenses.

Tom,

Yes, I have learned there are multi-faceted benefits from being in the fire, much as my flesh hates it. You are right, trials and hardships do give us motivation to learn what we are to do scripturally so we can respond in a right manner. On a personal note, I have been through much fire and tribulation (I'm sure it's all relative)in the past couple of years, but I cannot tell you how often I've been able (with God's help) to speak to someone else in a similar situation and to comfort them with the comfort I have been given. So God uses these tough things in our lives not only for our good and His glory, but to prepare us to be used in a way we might not have been before, which is glorifying to Him.

The thought you mentioned on learning to be content, too, is a great encouragement. Even the Apostle Paul didn't just "get it", he had to learn as well, as we do. Related to learning is the idea of being strengthened through use, as in Hebrews 5:14 - "But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." Some of us >>>me need lots of trials to get lots of exercise.


This is a very good thing for you to teach your family and to practice. The Bible nowhere advises or allows (and certainly doesn't command) apology. An apology is an inadequate, humanistic substitue for the real thing. To say "I'm sorry" is a human dodge for doing what God has commanded, and that is the biblical requirement of confession and forgiveness, which are always linked together. As long as Christians continue to say to those they have wronged, "I'm sorry" (or words to that effect), instead of "I sinned; will you forgive me?", and as long as they receive the natural response, "Oh that's all right" or something similar, the real solutions to the to the difficulties will continue to be by-passed.

Apology is wrong, not only because it is man's inadequate substitue for God's revealed method of righting wrongs, but apology elicits an inadequate response. When we ask, "Will you forgive me?" we have put the ball into the other person's court, and a response is now required of him. The onus of responsibility has shifted from the one who did the wrong to the one who was wronged. Both parties are then required to put the matter in the past. And the proper response (Luke 17:3) is, "Yes, I will". Like God's forgiveness ("Your sins and iniquities I will remember against you no more"), human forgiveness is a promise that is made and kept. It entails quite a committment (see the 3 elements of forgiveness I listed in above post). So, an apology is an inadequate substitute because it asks for no such commitment, and gets none. To say "I'm sorry" is nothing more than an expression of one's own feelings. To say, "I have wronged you," and then to ask, "Will you forgive me?" is quite another thing.

Thanks (admins) for the heart - I love it!

Robin,

That's a good point. Sometimes people do not realize their offenses against others.

Chestnutmare,

What do you mean by "an appropriate reproach?"

This is great stuff! Thanks a lot for weighing in on this topic. It has been very edifying.

Sometimes. too, the person who does not repent remains unforgiven - not because we can't extend forgiveness, but because he is not in a proper frame of a heart that has been softened to receive it. In other words, not because we are unable to extend it, but because he is unable to accept it. The one who says, "But I've done nothing wrong!" cannot accept forgiveness because doing so would be an "admission of guilt." Pride is insidious, especially when it masquerades as injury to an "innocent" person.

Been there, done that too.

Oh I will be so glad when I'm with Him and my battles with sinful pride in my own heart are finally over! In the meantime, it's another example of why Christians need one another so badly.

-R

Another excellent point!

The prodigal had to "come to himself" (Lk 15:17), before he was able to confess his fault. His father was ready to forgive, but he had to "do his thing" and be forced to eat some pig slop, before he could do some serious soul searching and come to a place of true repentance.