Board index ‹ Assorted Bible Questions

[Analog]

Christians are encouraged to forgive trespasses but can such forgiveness be taken back? Can, for example, a victim of adultery take back his forgiveness given prior? Mathew talks about parable of a master who forgave a slave who, after that, lost the forgiveness because of his actions with another slave. Does that parable constitute a rule that forgiveness can be taken back? Are there any other passages that say forgiveness can be taken back? Can God take back forgiveness? If so, under what circumstance? Thank you for explanation.

[Sushi]

Forgiveness by definition cannot be taken back. To forgive is to (for all intents and purposes) forget the offence and to not take it into account any more (of course it isn't possible to actually forget it, but we should try to live as if it were forgotten). To take that forgiveness for a past offence back would suggest that there was never forgiveness in the first place. We are encouraged to forgive as God forgives, and God never takes back forgiveness.

A victim of adultery should not take back their prior forgiveness. Of course if they are wronged again, they may not necessarily forgive the new offence.

[jimwalton]

I think the answer is nuanced, rather than black-and-white. I see what Sushi said, and there are many ways I agree with that. Forgiveness means you forgive (I know that sounds like a "duh" statement, but I hope you know what I mean by it).

On the other hand, I don't see forgiveness as forgetting. Lots of people have hurt me badly. I'll never forget it (how can I?), but I treat them as if it never happened, and I put it behind me. I have forgiven them, even though I can never forget. I would guess it's the same way, like, in an extreme case, where a person kills, let's say, someone's son. They're never gonna forget that their son is dead, but they can still forgive.

I find, instead, that forgiveness is distancing myself from my desire to get the other person back or to hurt the other person. It's when I just keep cutting those ropes pulling me to revenge or hatred. Instead, I try to build bridges, as much as it hurts me to do that. I want to lash out, but instead I try to latch on and restore the relationship. Even though I'm not feelin' it, I do it to please God.

Forgiveness is doing everything possible to distance myself from the pain in me—the "grave hurt." It's not that I put it in a closet or pretend it's not there. Rather, for the sake of my relationship with God, I train myself to admit that it ultimately doesn't matter. All that matters is God's will and God's kingdom. So I mentally untie my attachment to that pain and focus on my relationship with God. I'm not pretending, however. I truly, in a very biblical sense, let it go because my pain is not what this life is about. I have to live above life, live above that. I have to think like God wants me to think, and so I cut that rope, too.

I find that forgiveness is more of a continuum rather than a black-&-white either/or. It's also a process. I think each situation has to be worked through as its own situation. Generalizations are difficult and often inadequate. It's easy and cheap to toss out clichés and aphorisms. That's not helpful. The hard work is in the nitty gritty of working out the relationship to the glory of God (sometimes extremely difficult and seemingly impossible, but the Bible says that we can only do so much if the other party won't cooperate or isn't into it) and working out in me whatever takes me in a Godward direction. This is a process of learning to think differently, learning to prioritize spiritual disciplines and tasks, and learning how to relate to a person who has treated me monstrously.

And I also agree with Sushi that sometimes situations change, and new information (or offenses) come about. You mentioned an appropriate story from Matthew 18.21-35. The guy was forgiven, but when he acted the jerk, the lender crashed down on him and took back the forgiveness.

But what's the point of that text? It starts off with Jesus basically saying that our forgiveness should be virtually unlimited, and it seems to end with forgiveness being distinctly temporary. It's that last piece that is the misunderstanding. Jesus is truly saying the forgiveness should be deep, broad, and almost reckless, like God's; at the end He is saying if one's forgiveness is not like God's, that person will find himself being judged for not paying it forward. That's the point, not that forgiveness can be rescinded. At the same time, we see that there is not unlimited forgiveness no matter what a person does. Here we find out that forgiveness has its appropriate limits and justifiable conditions.

It seems like we have to talk more about this. I would be glad to.

[Analog]

I read the previous poster and I agree with you on forgetting: just because we forgive it does not follow we forget. In fact, in some instances we want to thoroughly recall sin in order to analyze it so it does not happen again, as Satan works in similar pattern described in Genesis.

Anyway just to add to some scriptural clarity as to where my original question comes from, consider Matthew 6:15

But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

This is clear that my forgiveness is contingent on me forgiving others.

The Matthew 18:21-36 passage you listed starts with Jesus saying that we should forgive and not keep count of how many times. So everything is fine until verse 34:

“His lord was angry, and delivered him to the tormentors, until he should pay all that was due to him”

The King, parallel for God, refused to forgive the slave’s sin because the slave refused to forgive others. But note the punishment... until the slave pays back for exactly what he was forgiven for. In other words, the original forgiveness seems to have been rescinded. Therefore, I originally always thought that forgiveness, once given, is not rescinded, until I got to this passage. Unless there is a lapse in my logic and if so what is it?

[jimwalton]

Thanks for the reply I always enjoy a good discussion.

You'll find in Scripture that forgiveness is almost always conditional. There are some occasions where we're just not told, and there are a few where there doesn't seem to be a condition (such as Mark 2.5). Most of the time forgiveness is conditioned on repentance.

> Matthew 6:15

Verse 14 expresses the concept positively, and in 15 we hear the negative. I agree with you that "my forgiveness is contingent on me forgiving others," but the Bible has more to say about it than just this. if we're not willing to forgive others who hurt us, if we're not willing to show grace to others—meaning treat others in a godly way—than there's good reason to suspect that you are really a follower of Christ. I think that's at least part of what's going on here.

> Matthew 18:34

The point of the passage as a whole is pretty clear: Forgiven people should forgive. How much is at stake? Can I be saved if I refuse to forgive? Jesus’s answer is no, because forgiven people forgive. The text divides into three scenes:

1. The first scene describes the most lavish forgiveness imaginable (vv. 24-27). It’s a scene and an action that's not even reasonable because of its hyperbole of debt ($10-12 million in today's terms—an enormously unreachable sum to Jesus's listeners) and conditionless forgiveness. This is no earthly king or presidential pardon. It’s a story of God’s extraordinary mercy.

2. The second scene (v. 28) describes a common situation of indebtedness, rules, expectations, and consequences. But it’s not reasonable either, this time because of an absurd refusal to forgive the tiniest amount (about $20), and especially given the context.

3. The third picture (vv. 32ff.) shows a change of demeanor: the radical forgiver of the first scene is also an exacting judge—not to be so dishonored—and Jesus sees no incongruity between the two. I guess there was a condition to the forgiveness after all. The forgiveness was rescinded because the man failed to imitate the grace of his lord.

The real failure was that the man didn't live his life in the model of his lord. Here (v. 34) Jesus is starting his transition to what it teaches us about God. Sin in Matthew is always to be understood as incurring debt with God. (It's one of Matthew's stylistic traits.) The man's behavior was a clear violation of grace, which is a habitual and repeated theme of Jesus's. The fact is that because of the man's attitude and behavior, he is actually going to get what he deserves instead of being a beneficiary of grace.

Then in v. 35 Jesus makes his point clear: this parable is about earthly relationships as indicators of our relationship with God, a point expressed elsewhere in the NT (Jn. 13.35; 1 Jn. 4.7-8). The way we treat each other is a gauge of our relationship with God. So if someone doesn't forgive other people, it shows they don't know God (Eph. 4.32-5.1).

I don't perceive that you are having a lapse in logic.

[Sushi]

Maybe "forget" wasn't quite the right word. I was thinking of where it says that God will "not remember our sins". On further thought I don't think "forget" and "not remember" necessarily mean the same thing. To not remember seems to suggest a conscious effort to no longer "hold on" to a grievance, to let it go as you said.

I think it's very true what you said about forgiveness being a process, rather a snap decision. I know I have in the past tried to decide to forgive someone on the spot, but not been very successful. In reality it can take time for the pain of an offence to lessen so that we can start to distance ourselves from it.

[jimwalton]

Thanks. The idea that God will "not remember our sins" obviously doesn't mean he actually forgets. God is omniscient, after all. You're right when you say it really means that He doesn't hold them against us.