Monday: The Greatness of Forgiveness
One of the worst consequences of the Fall is seen in interpersonal relationships. From Adam trying to blame Eve for his sin (Gen. 3:12) to this moment on earth today, our race has been ravaged and degraded by conflict between individuals. Unfortunately, conflicts are not just in the world but in the church, as well.
Read Matthew 18:15-35. What does Jesus tell us here? Why, though, do we often not follow His words to us?
Image © Rolf Jansson from GoodSalt.com
Let’s face it: it’s easier to go behind someone’s back to complain about him or her than to go directly to the person and deal with the issue. And that is precisely why we don’t want to do it, despite being told to do it by the Lord. Yet, Jesus teaches us to go directly to someone who has hurt us and to attempt to restore the relationship. If the person is not receptive, then there are additional instructions.
“‘For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them’” (Matt. 18:20, NKJV). Look at the context here; it is about the discipline and restoration of another person. (We tend to apply this verse more broadly.)
Jesus says that the Holy Spirit is present when a small group is attempting to restore a believer. This is the beautiful work of Redemption. And it begins with humbly doing the right thing and talking directly with someone who has hurt you. This, too, would be another example of greatness in those who do it.
Read Matthew 18:21-35 again. What crucial point is Jesus making?
When Jesus says to “forgive seventy times seven,” what He’s really saying is that we must never stop forgiving someone. Jesus is serious about the necessity of forgiveness, not only for others’ benefit but for our own. Look at how strong the parable is that He told to make His point. We can be forgiven a lot of things; that’s what the gospel is all about, forgiveness (see Exod. 32:32, Acts 5:31, Col. 1:14), but if we don’t forgive others the way we have been forgiven by God, we can face dire consequences.
| Why is it so important, then, to dwell upon the Cross, upon the forgiveness that we have been given because of it? If God did this for you, if this is what it took to forgive you, how can you learn to forgive others, no matter how impossible that forgiveness might now appear to be? |
(27)
We thank for the efforts to come up with this page. May our good lord richly bless you.
From the Lesson: "Let’s face it: it’s easier to go behind someone’s back to complain about him or her than to go directly to the person and deal with the issue."
The very first application of this occurred in heaven -
"When Satan became disaffected in heaven, he did not lay his complaint before God and Christ". To me this speaks volumes!
He felt that he could not go to Christ (at that time called Michael); he felt that he could not go to the Father. He simply could not approach them, and talk things out. Could he have? Would they have allowed him to speak? I have no doubt that they WOULD have listened - humbly, calmly, listened -
"When Satan became disaffected in heaven, he did not lay his complaint before God and Christ, but he went among the angels who thought him perfect, and represented that God had done him injustice in preferring Christ to himself."
(5Testimonies p.291)
He went behind their backs, and complained about them!
I just want to ask if michael and lucifer is the same? Becaause you said "at that time called michael" you mean satan is michaael same as lucifer?
Renan, I am reluctant to digress / get us off onto another subject here, but what I was meaning was that Michael (the 'Captain of the Lord's host' in the war in heaven) was the Divine Son of God - the very same Person that we commonly call Christ or Jesus today.
So... no, Michael and Lucifer were not the same person. Michael created Lucifer in the beginning, but they became two opposite kinds of people.
Stewart, can you give a Bible text to describe Michael creating Lucifer? Just curious.
If Michael is Christ. Christ is God. God created Lucifer. Then Michael created created Lucifer.
lucifer and micheal are quite different. im not deadly sure but ppl use micheal for christ. lucifer is definately for satan
Does anyone have a clear explanation of these two texts? matt18:18 and Matt.16:19. Because both texts are quoted it seems rather important.
Hi Paul
It seems the answer is unlocked best by looking at the context in which this was said. I like the way the lesson brought out the context for the Matthew 18 part. I have not yet looked at the context for Matthew 16:19.
God lead us to a correct understanding of this indeed as I think it is prone to much misapplication.
All through the week, we are going to learn something about greatness. Without doubt, forgiveness is one of the simple ways to be great. Other ways include; being obedient to God's word, facing a brother who has sinned against you to try resolve the issue and restore the relationship. We MUST START practicing these things if at all we want to stand a chance of becoming great! Allow me to quote Zig Ziglar who said "You don't have to be great to start, but you have to start to be great”! Blessed week ahead!
―
It is difficult to forgive sometimes especially when you are angry, but if you pray genuinely about it , God relief you of this burden, you will be able to forgive. Recognize sin and that is the only way you will be able to ask for help.
If there is such a thing as the unpardonable sin (Matthew 12:22–32) why would I think that forgiving my brother "seventy times seven" means that I should always forgive? If there is a sin that God doesn't forgive, what of puny man?
Consider this passage:
"If your brethren err, you are to forgive them. When they come to you with confession, you should not say, I do not think they are humble enough. I do not think they feel their confession. What right have you to judge them, as if you could read the heart? The word of God says, “If he repent, forgive him. And if he trespasses against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.” Luke 17:3, 4. And not only seven times, but seventy times seven—just as often as God forgives you." {COL 249.2}
Can I forgive a sin against me that is not repented of?
With the unpardonable sin, the forgiveness is available (it is not that God does not want to forgive) , but His forgiveness is not sought for or accepted. I don't think the passage says that the person has to accept it. I believe our duty is to make it available, just like Christ has made provision for us if we sin. Just my humble opinion.
Tyrone, I have a question that has been discussed more than once, The question is , if someone doesn't want to be forgiven by another human being, is a person responsible to forgive someone that doesn't want to be forgiven anyway? Similar to what you had in mind.
Hi Paul, I do believe when all is said and done you cannot force someone to accept it. If that were the case then I don't think there would be an unpardonable sin and the whole world would be saved since God would have to forgive everyone anyway and save everyone too (whether they wanted it or not), not sure how that would go. It's an interesting subject which really deserves some more study but at the end of the day, I believe the best thing to do is follow the example of Jesus and offer forgiveness.
Wow this one is hard real hard to grapple with folks. You are tho one who broke my trust, I gave you my word you are the one who messed up and them I should be the one to come to you to ask you to make it up? Help ma Jesus.
Let look in our self and see what God did not forgive us of, (did you see anything) No well let us make it right with our fellow men/women today if God can forgive us then what is so hard for us to forgive others. Think about it. It si your own soul
The comment in Matt12:31,32 is for the most part, disregarded. It seems the lengthy discussion about forgiving sin caused by another human being, is rather one sided and seen as very important. The commandment in Matt.12:31,32 is not debatable. It is pretty clear as I see it. One might say, in the mind of most believers, forgiveness is only given by One Deity. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Disputes between a" brother" is covered in Matt 22:37-40.
Somewhere in my library is a devotional book by Mark Finley that gave me the best understanding of forgiveness. I can only paraphrase: To forgive means not to treat lightly when a terrible wrong has been committed against you or someone very dear to you. But forgiving means releasing someone from my condemnation because Christ so graciously releases me from His condemnation.
Is the word sin not the subject of Matt.18:15? Is any type of misunderstanding a sin? There is always a tendency to embellish an idea. If sin, real or imagined, is in the heart then I would say forgiveness is necessary.
Not my will but Thy will be done in me, Father.
pls does our forgiving others serve as a prerequisite for obtaining God's forgiveness?
Ayuba, yes, in a sense forgiving others is a prerequisite for obtaining God's forgiveness.
Mat 6:14-15
"...if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: but if you forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."
But when Jesus prayed on the cross, "Father forgive them...", this shows, I believe, that God carries no grudge against anybody. If we do not forgive others, this stands as a barrier [in us] against being able to receive God's forgiveness. He is forgiving but we are turning it away.
Dear Lord give me a forgiving spirit, because I can not do it without your spirit.
The lack of the spirit of forgiveness is the one that is destroying our church today. And i tend to wonder as to why we have enemies in church yet we call ourselves God's children??
Alick, because we are free moral agents. We do not need to agree with each other for that reason. We are Gods children because He loves each of us.
Well, forgiveness is what determines one's love, for if one is not ready to forgive, then he or she is not ready to love, for it is because our God is love, and He loves us, that's why His is always willing to forgive us Amen
I believe as adults, we need to stop; playing the blame game. Yes! our first parents blamed each other, when they first sinned. Adam blamed God for the woman he gave him, and Eve blamed the serpent who spoke to her in the garden. From the beginning of time, no one wanted to take the responsibilities of their wrong doing (sins).
I am so thankful that God and his only begotten son, a long time ago had the conversation regarding Jesus coming to planet earth to save us his sons and daughter from our sins by shedding his blood and dying on the cross and rose on the third day and ascended by to heaven to his father; and Restoration through his strips and blood of my Lord and Savior has made me realized and accept the fact that without Jesus strips and blood we would be non-existence.
The ability to forgive is what identifies the civilized person from the barbarian.
Holding onto a grudge and/or animosity results in one becoming like a demon.
"Anyone you forgive, I also forgive. And what I have forgiven--if there was anything to forgive--I have forgiven in the sight of Christ for your sake,in order that Satan might not outwit us. For we are not unaware of his schemes." 2 Cor 2:10 & 11
A forgiving attitude is what shows if a person has humility and is meek.
Those who are not meek are very difficult to relate to and are hard to get along with, in family, work, school, etc.
The meek shall inherit the Earth. The proud will be eliminated from existence.
Paul Blanke, your question on Matt18:18 and Matt 16:19 Kindly read a quote from Ellen White 5BC 1151.2. It will help a great deal.
God Bless you.
Paul Blanke. Trying to answer your question. Quote form Inspiration can assist. I believe, if someone refuses to be forgiven, means he or she does not want to repent.
'The names of those who sin and refuse to repent should not be retained on the church books. lest the saints be held accountable for their evil deeds. those who pursue a course of transgression should be visited and labored with, and if they then refuse to repent, they should be separated from the church fellowship, in accordance with the rules laid down in the word of God...5BC1096.5
'Those who refuse to hear the admonitions and warnings given by God's faithful messengers are not to be retained in the church. They are to be disfellowshiped;for they will be as Achan in the camp of Isreal-deceived and deceiving. Who, after reading the record of Acahn's sin and punishment, can think it according to the will of God that those who do wickedly, refusing to repent, are to be retained in the church? To retain them would be an insult to the God of heaven. 5BC 1096.6-7
The question regarding Matt16:19 and Matt. 18:18. Jesus was talking to the disciples on both occasions. Jesus was their mentor so to speak as well as the authority from their Father in Heaven. What was bound by Jesus, on earth was also bound by Jesus, in Heaven. The hatred between the Jews and the Samaritans was not a secret. They were actually distant relatives. But Jesus saw them for what they should be, not what they were. The parables and the miracles between those chapters were all for one purpose. To glorify the Heavenly Father.
Matthew 18:17 says "And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector."
I think the author intentionally left this out from the topic. But how can you reconcile this in the context of forgiveness that Jesus is talking about?
Venus,
I suggest that Jesus taught His people a "new attitude" toward the heathen (i.e. toward the Samaritans etc.), and toward tax collectors. It was an attitude of respect - yes, and more than respect - but the "new" attitude toward them did not mean automatic inclusion in the church.
If a person [a persistent offender] would not hear personal entreaties, nor the voice of the whole church, then that person was not to be retained as a member. But this step was not taken for the churches sake only. The apostle Paul explains that if (for example) an unrepentant man eats and drinks the Lord's supper, then he "eats and drinks damnation to himself" (1Cor 11:29) - that is, he does himself damage - deluding himself that his sense of spiritual security and acceptance is from God. But his being "cut off" is not a punishment, as much as it is an effort to limit the spiritual damage that he is doing to himself. (It would be better for some if they had never known the things of God.)
But of course heathen men and publicans were still objects of solicitude. Treating him as a heathen man and a publican certainly does NOT mean - "have nothing to do with him".
I believe one pertains to matters within the formal church while the other pertains to the matter of forgiveness in general. What is believed to be the ultimate goal is to "heal" the parties involved in each case. Notice I said "parties";this means both the aggrieved AND the one whose behavior perpetrated the aggrievement. Spiritually this means different things to each party:to the perpetrator of the behavior that resulted in aggrievement(sometimes outright "sin", sometimes harder or in fact not possible to define as such), it means steering this person in at least a better/more outwardly loving direction, or a less sinful direction(as the case may be). To the aggrieved party it means providing some relief that perhaps the motives of the perpetrator were not quite as evil as this could be immediately perceived, and that the healing process will likely lessen the chances for recurrence, and a general healing between two parties.
The simple practical fact is that within the church setting, if serious enough and particularly if the size of the church is small enough, issues between two persons can threaten the health and well-being of the entire church. In this case, the prescription for healing is first in attempting to point out to the perpetrator the sin or the fact that sin occurred or at least the behavior was not according to the standards of the church in terms of propriety, expression of respect or dignity, good communication, expected adherence to rules of church structure and governance, etc. It is presumed then that if the perpetrator after that process agrees that sin or at least improper behavior on his or her part occurred, then the healing at that stage and scope, ie, between the two people, has in a sense been "squared away" inasmuch as such situations are capable of doing that. However, some behaviors and consequences DO have lasting results on the church as a whole. We would like to hope these do not occur frequently or lightly but sometimes this does happen. As a result, the church as a whole is well advised to take up such matters in a timely and appropriate fashion for a few reasons, namely, to demonstrate it takes such matters seriously and is what it represents it is, namely, an organization that "walks the walk" as opposed to merely "talking the talk." Also for the purpose of setting folks behaving badly on a more righteous path, if possible. Those are both hugely legitimate concerns of a church even as often those going about those concerns do not present or come across as they might at times in making the effort. We hear for example about "hypocrisy" and while much of that perception is overblown in certain ways, we must take care that the charge of same is not truly applicable to us as a church body, inasmuch as it is humanly possible to take care toward this end. Last, creating a culture where love is affirmed and hatred, bitterness, and strife-sowing is met with some kind of negative reinforcement is sometimes necessary to underscore the mission of the church and maintain a culture of same.
Now, literally none of the foregoing has much to do with the topic of forgiveness. They are "housekeeping and governance" issues, which are important in and of themselves. Forgiveness is something that is, at its core, a matter of the heart. The command to forgive is issued in that vein. Forgiveness can certainly coexist within the confines of church discipline, because the purposes of the two do not coincide. In other words, just because the church is disciplining someone does not mean that the church as a whole cannot forgive that person of their transgression--or that individuals within the church cannot do so. Indeed, all Christans are COMMANDED to do so. In fact one perspective, with which I agree, is that we are to be liberal in our providing the chance to ourselves to forgive--AND demonstrate this in relatively leniency in matters of church discipline and addressing serious behavior issues within the church milieu. Forgiving is not the equivalent however with an entirely "Laissez-faire" governance or discipline policy from the church as a whole, however. Disciplining someone or even reacting very negatively toward their behavior seen as bad or actually bad does not mean I must judge them eternally negatively. Forgiveness in a human sense reflects the forgiveness that God offers us, although it is obviously on a different scale of eternal spiritual importance in the sense that what God offers us cannot compare to what a human being could ever offer us. It is an integral part of Christ's preaching that determines we are not to hate but to radically love even though our neighbor's behavior normally wouldn't elicit a response of kindess and love in return. And to refrain from judging:"Judge NOT-- lest YE be judged....etc". The essence of the gospel is to love and love radically, although this is often hard to do in the case of "thine enemies". But to boil it down further, to treat others as you would prefer to be treated, ie, the "golden rule." This mission of both the injunctions on resolving personal disputes within the church and of good church governance have to do with reinforcing ALL such principles, and in this sense, there is absolutely NO difference in mission between the two.
There was a certain man who served as a local church treasurer, and a certain woman therein--who now serves as elder-- who stole certain records as part of that treasury work. That certain treasurer resigned his post as a result of receiving no support from the then pastor of the church. Now there was a certain pastor of this congregation who determined, upon hearing this as a relatively new pastor thus not around when the original stealing had occurred in the context of a sad outcome of hiring discrimination when the former church treasurer had sought a job in the community in accounting and was denied it on this basis, to go to the certain identified person who stole said records per the charge found in this lesson study above. That certain treasurer replied to that certain pastor that his advice on the matter was fine as far as it went, but that whether that certain former treasurer followed this course or not, that the lack of church pastoral leadership and general backbone from pastoral leadership in light of such issues would not concurrently be so much as addressed by such an act or omission of such an act. That certain pastor made no reply to such an observation.
So I would like to throw out a question or two based on the above true story: 1)Was the former church treasurer incorrect in his observation of lack of pastoral leadership and backbone in such a scenario that needed to be addressed, or should he have instead have had to "purchase" this privilege by conforming to the process of going to the person who had committed the transgression and seeking some reconciliation over that as a result?; 2)What did the end result of the situation per the hiring discrimination experience mean for the commonly discussed yin and yang between how we ought to be with one another in the church in creating a contrast from "the world and its ways" and that of the world and its ways as exampled here?
Thank you all!
If I understand the situation correctly, the original treasurer should have followed the counsel in Matthew 18: After talking to the elder, he should have taken another person with him to talk to the elder. In this case, the proper person to take with him would have been the pastor. If the elder refused to repent, restore, etc., the matter should have been taken to the church, with the elder relieved of his/her responsibility.
Again, if I understand correctly, the treasurer suffered significant damage from the situation. Even belatedly, an action from the pastor in facilitating a meeting leading to a certain amount of restoration would be appropriate. The former treasurer should be involved in visiting with the former/current elder. If there were no repentance on the part of the former/current elder, it should still be taken to the church to resolve the issue. Sin doesn't just go away on its own. Repentance is necessary.
Not sure what you meant regarding the current pastor. It seems to me that he should pick up at the point where the former pastor failed - namely in visiting the former/current elder to address the issue, as I suggested above.