I am still a bit in the dark about what sort of acts we should withhold (unconditional) forgiveness from. I can see a range of acts that people need to forgive -
Really bad and abusive behaviour that falls short of being criminal but we must resist somehow in terms of not condoning and self protection(and there will be a spectrum here)
Things that people, do through ignorance and weakness ā that may be terrible ā but since we are all implicated in ignorance and weakness it is hard to play the judge (and things that people may be in some sort of denial about though we may still have to keep a positive relationship with them because there is still much that is positive and loving there).
Petty slights and irritating stuff that we have to not take to heart because we are all irritating fallible people.
There is a range of things that people mean when they talk about forgiveness I think. For this reason I donāt think forgiveness is amenable to simple solutions. I really donāt ā and I mean this from the depths of my heart.
Paidion, Thanks! I appreciate what you have to say, and look forward to hearing what you will say about the rest.
Dick, Thanks for your input on this. I hope I didnāt inadvertently offend you. I absolutely didnāt intend to. I only addressed you particularly because some of the things you said made me think of my question ā I didnāt mean to imply any lack on your part at all.
Iāve also tagged Jason because heās our other (that I know of) original languages scholar and also because I value his input just on the general issue in any case, so hopefully heāll show up in a bit and share what he knows/thinks.
Good Cindy - no of course you havenāt offended me
I know that turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, give away your cloak have been heard/taught as injunctions that we should all become doormats and soft touches. The most interesting work Iāve read on these sayings ā by Walter Wink ā suggest that these sayings were originally addressing how to resist the evils perpetrated by the occupying Romans in a dignified and assertive way - but not a violent and vengeful way. See ā
Actually I donāt think the RC church invented their interpretation of the passage, but that it originated with the early church, and was variously applied to the early catholic (universal church) as it gradually changed through the centuries. Iām sure youāve examined the passage in context, but it might be instructive to look at it again. I think the words of Jesus which I have underlined, are relevant to undestanding verse 23.
18 Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that He had spoken these things to her.
19 Then, the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them, āPeace be with you.ā
20 When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord.
21 So Jesus said to them again, āPeace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.ā
22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.
23 āIf you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.ā
The Father had sent Jesus with the gospel of the Kingdom, and similarly, Jesus sent his disciples with the same commission.
In doing the work which the Father had sent him to do, Jesus sometimes forgave sins. I love the following passage. I love how Jesus forgave the repentant sinner instead of perpetually holding her sin against her, as the Pharisees did.
36 One of the Pharisees asked him to eat with him, and he went into the Phariseeās house and took his place at the table.
37 And behold, a woman of the city, who was a sinner, when she learned that he was reclining at table in the Phariseeās house, brought an alabaster flask of ointment,
38 and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head and kissed his feet and anointed them with the ointment.
39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, āIf this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner.ā
40 And Jesus answering said to him, āSimon, I have something to say to you.ā And he answered, āSay it, Teacher.ā
41 āA certain moneylender had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty.
42 When they could not pay, he cancelled the debt of both. Now which of them will love him more?ā
43 Simon answered, āThe one, I suppose, for whom he cancelled the larger debt.ā And he said to him, āYou have judged rightly.ā
44 Then turning toward the woman he said to Simon, āDo you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair.
45 You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet.
46 You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment.
47 Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgivenāfor she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little.ā
48 And he said to her, āYour sins are forgiven.ā
49 Then those who were at table with him began to say among themselves, āWho is this, who even forgives sins?ā
50 And he said to the woman, āYour faith has saved you; go in peace.ā
In some cases, when Jesus forgave sins, the Pharisees said He was blaspheming, for āWho can forgive sins, but God only?ā
The Pharisees were mistaken. God is not the only one who can forgive sins, but also the one whom God has sent, namely His Son. Now Jesus, imparted to his disciples his holy spirit, and sent his disciples with the same commission as that by which his Father had sent him (proclaiming the good news of the Kingdom). So the disciples also had the authority to forgive the sins of a repentant person. Here is the way the ESV translates John 20:23
If you forgive the sins of anyone, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld.
But why would the disciples withold forgiveness from anyone? They would do so if the offenders were unrepentant, and it was necessary to discipline them.
When the disciples forgave sins, this was recognized by the Father in heaven, just as if He had forgiven them. When the disciples witheld forgiveness, this was recognized by the Father in heaven.
Here is the order which Jesus himself established (Matthew 18):
15 āIf your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.
16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses.
17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a gentile and a tax collector.
18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
So if the offender will not listen to anyone, he is excommunicated (as we would say in our day). He would be just like a āgentileā (the early Christians referred to non-Christians as āgentilesā). He would be regarded as a non-Christian and treated accordinglyānot to penalize him, but to help steer him to repentance. Offenders would be loosed from the church, and this excommunication would be recognized in heaven, as being loosed from the Church of Christ! But if the offenders were repentant, they could be bound back into the church, and God in heaven would bind them back into the Christian Church! In our day, Christians donāt easily recognize the authority which Christ has given his Church. If some expression of the Church excommunicates a person today, he simply move on to some āchurchā which will accept him. But I doubt that this latter action accepting the unrepentant sinner into this kind of āchurchā would be recognized in heaven!
Loosing is what Paul instructed the Corinthian Christians to do with the man who had copulated his fatherās wife (1 Cor. 5).
1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his fatherās wife.
2 And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.
3 For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing.
4 When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus,
5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.
11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindlerānot even to eat with such a one.
12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?
13 God judges those outside. āPurge the evil person from among you.ā
This manās āfleshā had to be destroyed, that is, his self-serving nature. Paulās whole purpose in instructing the Corinthians to deal with the man in this way was to lead him to repentance. AND IT WORKED! The man repented. So Paulās instruction to them concerning their treatment of the man, was quite different in his next letter to the Corinthians (chapter 2):
2 For if I cause you pain, who is there to make me glad but the one whom I have pained?
3 And I wrote as I did, so that when I came I might not suffer pain from those who should have made me rejoice, for I felt sure of all of you, that my joy would be the joy of you all.
4 For I wrote to you out of much affliction and anguish of heart and with many tears, not to cause you pain but to let you know the abundant love that I have for you.
5 Now if anyone has caused pain, he has caused it not to me, but in some measureānot to put it too severelyāto all of you.
6 For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough,
7 so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow.
8 So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him.
10 Anyone whom you forgive, I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ,
11 so that we would not be outwitted by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his designs.
Whom the Corinthians forgave, Paul forgave. Whom the disciples forgave, Jesus forgave. Whom Jesus forgave, God forgave. What is done on earth in the name of Jesus or the Father, that is, as a representative of Jesus or the Father, is recognized in heaven by the Father.
It is only after the man repented, that Paul recommended forgiveness. What if Paul had insisted that they had to forgive him BEFORE he had repented. What do you think the outcome would have been?
This is a good example of understanding the bulk of texts referenced in terms of ārepentant wicked sinnersā where said āsinnersā are/were in fact ādisobedient fellow believersā e.g., Jas 5:19-20 ā hence the rightness of repentance etc.
Forgiveness and its said requirement of repentance as is demonstrated by the of the bulk of texts touted in this discussion are MOSTLY if not entirely, squarely directed at ābelieversā ā which is where Jesusā āto whom much is given much is requiredā standard makes obvious sense.
That saidā¦ in our privileged position as believers āforgivenessā is in our purview to give as we are so inclined. God gives us the grace and WE donāt have to mete it out according to our own subjective sense of conditional judgement, i.e., what WE view or deem as adequate repentance ā at least not in terms of those presently beyond the knowledge of grace. THAT at least is the case Iām makingā¦
Iām afraid I donāt find the arguments for conditional forgiveness convincing, there is no example of a point at which Jesus choose to withhold forgiveness, His very mission was and is one that holds out Godās forgiveness, and how the Son is, is how the Father is. There is no point in any of the narratives where He refuses forgiveness to discipline someone, so I just donāt see it, He forgives and saves. He brought the forgiveness of sins that Israel had been waiting for, for them this wasnāt just some personal aspect, this was the national thing, the return of Yahweh to Zion, the forgiveness of their debts, and the long-awaited incoming of the Kingdom of God and freedom from pagan oppression, where God becomes King over the world. This personal aspect of forgiveness and turning to God and being reconciled is part of this larger part of the gospel of the Kingdom, where we respond to the saving Lordship of Jesus, and the forgiveness of sins that has already been achieved and given to the world, the sin and evil of the world was dealt with at the cross. The key problem between us I guess is that for me there is still the confusion of forgiveness with reconciliation, and those texts only become convincing if you donāt see them as distinct though intertwined, what is in those is the condition for reconciliation (which comes through forgiveness that is already given, and when it is appropriated by repentance then can normal relations resume), and the need to confront other believers who continue to knowingly commit wrong and refuse to reject such practices, recognizing that in the end only when they turn from such ways can reconciliation to full fellowship resume. But forgiveness must be already offered for that to ever happen, just as with God, if He has not already provided and offered forgiveness and release for all the world, how can sinners ever come to Him, it just doesnāt make sense to me.
I can see though that we just donāt see things the same way, some feel that conditional forgiveness is self-evident and is biblical forgiveness, but to me this is an interpretation that confuses forgiveness and reconciliation, and doesnāt go far enough, and is not the forgiveness I see the NT requiring of me, of the very life of releasing of debts of all kinds and not holding them against anyone just as God does not hold mine against me. Indeed to actively seek to be a part, however small, of releasing people from all the bondage of sin, debt, poverty, tyranny or oppression, all to me are shades of the same marring of Godās good creation that Jesus death, resurrection and ascension to Lordship of the world at the right Hand of the Father provides release from through the forgiveness of sins through the cross, and in-bringing of Godās Kingship and new creation in and through Jesus of Nazareth by His Resurrection. And that the authority and power over everything in heaven and earth that is the Lordās is worked and brought through the self-giving, self-sacrificing love and service of the church to everyone, even and perhaps most particularly to those who are currently our enemies, we are commanded to bless them, to do good to them, and I donāt see how withholding forgiveness and reconciliation is doing good to someone who not yet a Christian, it will have no beneficial advantage for them that I can see, and it seems most unloving to me, particularly as Christians know more then anyone else (or should do) just how valuable and important it is, and how much we ourselves are recipients of such unmerited grace and love. Instead for me it remains the essential way in which Jesusā Lordship is brought to all areas in the world, allowing reconciliation at every level, individual, communal, national, and international, between people and God, between people, and between people and the world they live in and God is and will rescue. Such reconciliation is to see Godās will be done increasingly on earth as it is in heaven, until finally that prayer will be answered in full at the Lordās appearing, and I see such things as the Commission of Truth and Reconciliation as a powerful sign of Jesusā Lordship today, and how it is at work in our world. So given how differently we see biblical forgiveness I donāt think I will post more in the thread, though I will continue to read it with interest, but as said I just donāt donāt find arguments for conditional or withheld forgiveness convincing, and I would guess the same is true from those who do, who do not find the arguments for the other side convincing. As such, I would not have anything more helpful to add to this topic on that point, I must continue to follow the Truth as I understand it, as must those who see things differently, and hope God will reveal to us all the full truth and understanding of the situation.
I do have one final point relating rather to the idea that sins are to be seen as different or distinct from crimes, and though I probably am more radical here, I donāt personally see such a distinction myself, and I donāt think people in the 1st century made those kind of category distinctions we can sometimes today. And in Israel they seemed identical, even if not all sins involve judgement, serious ones did, adultery, idolatry, incest, theft or murder all seen as sins requiring the community, kingdom or state to act, not as one being a spiritual thing, and one as a civil matter. And to be forgiven involved not facing the penalty of that action (such as the story involving the woman forgiven for adultery), as Jesus deals with it on the cross, exhausting the consequences of that evil on Himself. I also think of Paul, who persecuted, beat and murdered by his own admission Christians, but no one in the early Church ever felt he should still face natural consequences for it, the forgiveness provided through Jesus released him and them from that, allowing reconciliation to take place, and full justice achieved in both releasing all from the ability of that violence to hold them, and releasing Paul to become a worker of justice an peace instead (and thus providing the great apostle we know). If evil has been judged, defeated and overcome by Jesus through the cross, death and resurrection, then the aim instead as I see it is to see that judgement brought everywhere, and seek release and reconciliation with all, to see Jesusā Lordship brought into all places, the slaves of all kinds being freed, the oppressed released and healing and restorative light brought into the dark places of the world. This to me makes the relationship with criminal justice systems complicated, on one level I feel I must work to see more restorative forms of justice brought into existence, to stand witness for them to those in power, reminding them that their authority is a delegated one. That whether they know it or not, all nations belong to the Lord, and they should not abuse that delegated authority to tyrannize or enslave their people, and I should witness to seeing more restorative and reconciliative forms of justice being practiced, rather then retributive ones. And in this vein it is worth noting that such things as the Commission of Truth and Reconciliation also had legal authority, the victim and perpetrators were brought together to look hard at what had happened, to confront the evil doers with it, and then together find a way forward through and out of it, to being reconciled as people and a community in the end. Similar systems are being tried I hear in New Zealand and some other areas, and I am behind such movements, they are much harder and donāt give people the vengeance they desire, but in the end it is the only way to be truly free I feel from the ability of evil and itās acts to continually poison peoples lives.
Where such systems of justice are not in operation makes it much more difficult, as I donāt feel first I should hold such actions against someone who wronged me, but should forgive and seek ways to bless and do good to them, and find a way enable true reconciliation, and if I donāt feel the current legal system will provide an opportunity for this I wonāt use it. If someone asks for my coat, I give to them, only if I felt someone else was in danger or could be hurt would I involve the authorities (or if the authorities involved themselves which happens, in which I case I should respect them as long as their actions were not evil), but otherwise and even if they are involved I feel I should always seek to love and do good all including those who might hurt or persecute me, seeking to see them released from the hurt and consequences of their sin/crime, and being reconciled to God and myself and seeing the hurt between us healed by their rejection of evil through repentance allowing that reconciliation and the true fellowship that results. So I disagree a little, I think we should be actively seeking to do good and to be reconciled and save such from the consequences of their evil actions, and overcome that evil with love and forgiveness bring in healing and restorative justice for all. It is the only way I can see that evil is actually defeated, the other only adds to it, with the only benefit being that it might at least halt someone continuing to commit their crimes, but it doesnāt do anything to release anyone for their effects or bring restoration, nor turns those enslaved to evil to becoming workers for justice and peace, and this is not full justice and cannot be.
Anyway, that is my position on the matter, which I am pretty sure few if any fully agree with me on, but it is where my understanding of what I am required to do and live by is, so with that I leave active participation in this thread, since I donāt think I would have anything more helpful to say or add.
So Davo (if I understand you correctly) you are saying that repentance is required for forgiveness of believers, but nor required for forgiveness of unbelievers. Do you have any clear scriptural references which support this position?
If there is to be any partiality in the matter of distinction between beleivers and unbelievers, Paul seems to have favoured beleivers:
So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.
(Galatians 6:10)
Nightrevan, I still await an explanation from those who believe in unconditional forgiveness, as to the essence of that forgiveness. I just donāt understand what you do when you āforgiveā as you see it. I brought forth a couple of suggestions, such as āletting go of ill feelingsā or ānot demanding recompenseā or āhaving no need to seek revengeā, but no one has said whether or not that is what they mean by āforgivenessā. If āforgivenessā is not āreconciliationā, or at least has āreconciliationā is a principal element, then just what IS it? Is it nothing more than a pleasant feeling? Is it some ethereal concept which has no precise meaning?
I suppose I ought to modify what I said about punishment for crimes. The problem I see with withholding punishment by moral legal authorities for crimes is that we as human beings are not customarily able to tell real repentance from false repentance. Is the penitent sorry for the punishment he fears to receive, or is she merely sorry she got caught? Has the experience of being exposed changed her? Does he even have the power to stop doing what heās doing? To fail to hold such a person accountable for her actions may be to expose more innocent parties to theft. To allow him to get away with a sincere-sounding plea for forgiveness will very likely expose more children to sexual abuse.
That said, if one could be certain (as God only can in most cases) that the offender had become safe to society and had truly turned from his or her sin, there would be no point nor any need to hold him accountable beyond restitution of those things he humanly could make right (which IS a recognized fruit of repentance). That said, a convicted child abuser has not only offended his direct victims; he has offended society as a whole. Therefore society, via lawful government channels, has a right and imo a duty to impose proper corrective punishment on a person who has shown himself dangerous and harmful to the safety of the least of these (or to anyone with less power than he).
In Paulās case, he showed himself sincere by his immediate turn-around in preaching and arguing for the Way which he had formerly persecuted. In addition, government punishment for him was not a factor as the government itself approved Paulās immoral actions. With regard to the church, he displayed that he had genuinely changed by risking his own life and freedom in the very city he had come to for the purpose of persecuting believers. Whatās more, God told Annanias, āI will show him what great things he must suffer . . . ,ā which Iāve always interpreted as, at least in part, therapeutic chastisement with an eye toward complete rehabilitation. Granted, the other apostles also suffered great things, and Paul would probably have suffered great things even if he had come early to the Way and had never persecuted the church. Still, considering how things DID play out, I believe these sufferings for him provided a new vantage point from which to see his former persecutions of others and probably had a huge hand in his being conformed to the image of Christ.
I do see at least one (as it seems to me) undeniable withholding of forgiveness, warned of by Jesus Himself ā His telling the Pharisees that their possible blasphemy against the Spirit should not be forgiven them neither in this age nor the age to come. I agree with GMac, as I understand him though imperfectly Iām sure ā that this refusal of forgiveness is not forever, but that so long as they refuse the very Spirit by whom the forgiveness is to be ministered to them, they, by refusing to repent, make their own forgiveness impossible to deliver to their hearts. They in effect slam the door to the only one who can effect such forgiveness and restoration. Nevertheless God, I firmly believe, will continue to work at finding His way through a crack or a chink or finally if necessary, reducing the door to its atoms. He works gently though, and Iām not sure He will ever force anyone to repent ā though He may make them an offer very difficult to refuse.
It seems to me thereās a continuum here (as there seems always to be in everything). The unrepentant sinner may desperately NEED to suffer consequences for his wrongs. If he isnāt made to feel himself at fault and guilty of harming others (and that this harming is bad), he is in danger of never coming to repentance. In some cases, holding a person accountable for his sins/crimes is the only loving way forward. We should never do it with malice, but rather with sorrow, desire for reconciliation and healing, and of course the need to protect others from harm. I can see absolutely no merit to passing over harm done to others and not truly repented of. It doesnāt serve the sinnerās best interests; it does not protect future victims; it does not give others motivation to refrain from sin. Still, if Iām wrong, Iām open to correction.
I agree with a lot of what youāve said NightRevan.
I do think there is a difference between a crime and a sin - all forms of violent abuse against another person are treated under good laws as crimes. I think to say these are the same thing as sins - whatever is the case in Old Testament law where many things which we would neither account as sins or crimes have the death penalty prescribed for them - muddies things a little for me.
One important aspect of the law is to protect the vulnerable from harm - and I think that, for example, children who are abused and women who are beaten up need to have recourse to the law to protect them (and sometimes a quasi Christian ethic of forgiveness can be employed to protect abusers).
I think that civil justice should be protective of the wronged and a deterrent to those who have committed crimes - but it also should be rehabilitative of the offender and at least aim to restore of their relationship to society -rather than simply to harden and brutalise them. I am not an advocate of retributivism as the foundation for criminal justice - although deterrence will always entail some proportionate loss and pain for the criminal . But I think we have to be aware that there are people who sadly do not seem to have the capacity for change in this life and wider society will always need to be protected from them
I am all for systems of restorative justice - they just have not been tried properly.
Regarding the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TARC) in South Africa - Desmond Tutuās wonderful initiative (and he is a universalist) - it addresses a specific situation. It concerns the need for amnesty after terrible injustice to prevent a society from descending into bloodletting. It has been largely successful in itās aims and itās wonderful that it has been also used in Rwanda (I remember seeing a film of Desmond Tutu praying and visibly shaken to the core in a place where one of the genocidal massacres had taken place).
I know that there have been some who have gone through TARC and felt that they were pressurised into forgiveness and were denied justice - or that the amnesty was too easy and let wicked and powerful people off the hook. I think Desmond Tutu is aware of this and not dismissive - the process can be idealised and has not healed all wounds in this life. But it has prevented a blood bath and should be tried more often.
You keep on keeping on with your thoughtful and beautifully written posts (and keep on disagreeing with me too ) This is such a wide ranging discussion we are having here.
Well actual no youāre not getting it. This is what Iām sayingā¦ the bulk of texts given in this thread relative to ārepentanceā and consequent āforgivenessā are pertinent specifically to the people of God, be they OC Israel or NT believers. Forgiveness is somewhat discretionary, i.e., it is ours to give or withhold, that is, it is fully our choice. IOW there is NO scope for laying blame on an offending party for our withholding forgiveness simply because WE pass judgement as to whether we see so-called ātrueā repentance, whatever that is considered to be.
However, having said that I CAN agree wholeheartedly that ārepentanceā should pretty much precede āforgivenessā in these termsā¦ REPENTANCE is a rational change of mind ā Ī¼ĪµĻĪ±Ī½ĪæĪĻ ā that affects a real change of heart in the believer where one gains the realisation that holding onto an offence is personally more damaging in effect [bitterness] than the originating offence. IOW it is MY choice as to whether I hang onto hurt by hanging onto the offence. I can do better by myself by letting it go, i.e., I repent and release. It is fully my choice to forgive and sometimes that takes time.
Why the opportunity for repentance is particularly pertinent between believers is that they are aware [hopefully] of the reality of forgiveness and how THAT was FREELY and UNILATERALLY given in Christ ON BEHALF OF ALL, regardless of personal realisation. Yes, realisation OFTEN leads to repentance but not all are so clued in.
For mine the essence is that of a thankful heart that has come to know Godās forgivenessā¦ simple!! If I learn anything from God it is that I can emulate Him.
Ok, well I accept your inability to grasp this.
Well certainly these can be some aspects of whatās involved with forgivenessā¦ seems rather basic to me, but thatās me.
They are not one and the same, though can be and preferably would be indelibly linked. But it is totally possible having forgiven i.e., repented and released an offending party, to have nothing more to do with themā¦ this can be circumstantial, e.g., someone Neville Nobody cuts me off in trafficā¦ I can allow rage to simmer beneath or I can GET OVER MYSELF.
Remember, Jesus did NOT sayā¦ āBut I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, ONLY IF they repent!ā
Of course, He didnāt! Those things are to be done unconditionally! But not so with forgiveness. None of those things constitute forgiveness. Nor does the package of all of them constitute forgiveness.
But Jesus did make forgiveness conditional upon repentance. He said, āWatch yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him.ā (Luke 17:3)
Again this is an example of what I noted early where the context of Jesusā injunction to ārepentā is seen, when you see it, to be applicable in-house i.e., as pertinent among fellow believers, as per āyour brotherā ā that Paidion is what Iām pointing to beyond your blind-spot. So Iām NOT discounting the valid place for repentance, but indicating rather that it is NOT a carte blanch requirement across all and sundry, being targeted however to those believers] who should by virtue of their experience of grace know better. Hope thatās clearer.
ā
)