True Forgiveness

[karenstricycle]

Paidion,

Quote:
(Homer)We are told to "flee from temptation". We know where we are weak, or we ought to. How then could a mother place her daughter in the care of someone who had molested her child, no matter how much he said he had repented? Trust, or faith in another, confidence they will do the right thing in face of a temptation where they have a demonstrated past history of failure would seem to be not only unwise but wrong. If we are to flee temptation, why would we want to tempt a weak brother to show our forgiveness of him?


(Paidion)Who tells us to “flee from temptation”? I have been unable to find this injuction in the Bible. In the King James, I have found, “Flee from fornication”. (The Greek masculine Greek word “pornos” translated “fornication” means “consorting with prostitutes” and the feminine form “pornā” means “prostituting oneself”)

I can't find it either. I was writing "off the top of my head - should have looked it up. I do think the principle is valid. In my mind I believe I paraphrased the following:


1 Corinthians 10:13-14 (New American Standard Bible)
13. No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.

14. Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.

This says to me that when tempted, we ought to get far, far away from the temptation.

[karenstricycle]

Bob,

At this point, I find myself in complete agreement with you.

[Guest]

Homer,

Thanks. But I think we've only "scratched the surface" on forgiveness. It seems like the topic is beginning to "peter out" though. There is a lot more to forgiveness than I've thought. At the very least, it's not easy, cheap or free! Amen?

In Jesus,
Bob

[Guest]

Homer:

1 Corinthians 10:13-14 (New American Standard Bible)
13. No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.

14. Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.

This says to me that when tempted, we ought to get far, far away from the temptation.

I had found these verses also, Homer, when you first mentioned the "command": "Flee from temptation"

But in the first, it is not from the temptation that God will provide the way of escape but with the tempation, He will provide the way.
Escape from what? Escape from being overtaken by the temptation ---- from succumbing to it, and thereby sinning.

And of course, the second asks us to flee from idolatry ---- not the temptation to commit idolatry.

It is being tempted, and overcoming temptations, that we become strong.

[Guest]

Hi Michelle,

You wrote:

1. Are you saying that as Jesus spoke about child-like faith and offenses and lost sheep and forgiveness, Peter was nodding his head thinking 'yes, yes...leave, let alone, give up, omit, permit, allow, to give up a debt. Got it. Oh, yes, and this is where I'm supposed to ask how many times...' And Jesus, hearing his question, realized that he understood the theological implications and was a good rabbinical student to remember to ask this important question and was just giving his opinion on the matter?

2. If so, how interesting that we can have such opposite interpretations of this episode and yet come to almost the very same conclusions about life in Christ.

1. This question of "How many times" was probably asked to every Rabbi out & teaching (it would be included in their corpus of doctrine).

2. I'm not sure what you mean by "opposite interpretations"...(I'm just going by the things the rabbis taught).

Yes, we seem to have come to the same conclusions re: life in Christ!

God bless,
Rick

P.S. The RYLT is a pretty good translation, imo (it is only NT as of now, afaik).

[karenstricycle]

We have discussed what true forgiveness would be like in the case of a man who molested a mother's child, particularly whether the mother would be required to treat the offender exactly the same as before the offense in order to truly forgive the man. I have another scenario to consider.

Suppose a man and women, both Christians attending the same church, get married. All is well for a time, but then one of them goes astray, has numerous affairs, then runs away to live with another. The offended spouse is badly hurt, but gets a divorce and moves on with life. Then one Sunday the adulterer shows up in Church and publicly makes a confession of adultry, and specifically asks the "ex" for forgiveness. The "ex" announces that forgiveness is granted. After church, the repentant party approaches the "ex" and requests that they remarry. Must the "ex" remarry the unfaithful spouse to truly forgive the past offenses? Remarriage would be treating the offender just as though the offenses hadn't occured, would it not? Suppose the offended party had yet to obtain a divorce, would the adulterer have to be accepted back?

I am not asking what would be the ideal thing to do, or even the better thing to do, but what must be done in this case for true forgiveness to have occured.

[Guest]

Hi Michelle,

You wrote:

1. Are you saying that as Jesus spoke about child-like faith and offenses and lost sheep and forgiveness, Peter was nodding his head thinking 'yes, yes...leave, let alone, give up, omit, permit, allow, to give up a debt. Got it. Oh, yes, and this is where I'm supposed to ask how many times...' And Jesus, hearing his question, realized that he understood the theological implications and was a good rabbinical student to remember to ask this important question and was just giving his opinion on the matter?

2. If so, how interesting that we can have such opposite interpretations of this episode and yet come to almost the very same conclusions about life in Christ.

1. This question of "How many times" was probably asked to every Rabbi out & teaching (it would be included in their corpus of doctrine).

2. I'm not sure what you mean by "opposite interpretations"...(I'm just going by the things the rabbis taught).

Yes, we seem to have come to the same conclusions re: life in Christ!

God bless,
Rick

P.S. The RYLT is a pretty good translation, imo (it is only NT as of now, afaik).

Hi Rick,

I think I jumped to the conclusion that because you were 'just going by the things the rabbis taught', you were saying that what Jesus taught was fully complimentary to what the rabbis taught, and that Peter was fully comprehending. I believe the opposite; that what Jesus taught was in contrast to what the rabbis taught and that Peter failed to comprehend.

Sorry that I jump so quickly to conclusions...
MM

[Guest]

Hello Homer;

Interesting scenario. I Cor. 5-7 offers some general principles. Jesus tells us divorce is permissable (not mandatory) in cases of adultery. Matt. 5:31.

There were broad powers given to the Apostles by Jesus for the administration of the Body, i.e., to forgive sin(s) or withold forgiveness, bind or lose. In most cases, both the offender and the offended where possible, are to seek reconcilliation with the goal of full restoration. But that of course isn't always easy. The sin of adultery carries with it the loss of a bond of trust. This sin is not like other sins where the loss sustained by the victim is a tangible and recoverable through " restitution". IMO, it is a "debt" that is "uncollectable". The loss therefore, must be forgiven as unpayable. There are no apparent exceptions.

Some may say true forgiveness must include full restoration of status or trust as if the offense were never commited. This would be the greatest good. However, I don't think it is always possible, practice-able or wise in every case. Only one who has been a victim of adultery, child abuse, rape, or incest can grasp what I am saying. The grace of Christ is greatly
needed here.

As for a direct answer to your scenario Homer, forgiveness is the "must". Reconcilliation of the marriage is always the greater good. That of course will take time and a lot of grace to develope. If they do not remarry in this scenario, I do not think they are free to re-marry another. Why? Because the offending spouse is repenting and they are both believers.
They must remain single, IMO.

In the ancient world, we must remember adultery at one time, carried with it the death penalty. Lev. 20:10. But Christ's shed blood satisfied and upheld the justice of God toward the sinner. The Law has no further claim upon believers. Forgiveness had the demand (in the background and basis) of the Law in view IMO. We give up any legal claim we may have under the Law because Christ has met all its demands in our behalf. If a person is unrepentant, then of course we are to treat the person as an "unbeliever, tax collector, pagan etc, and remove the "evil person(s)" from fellowship only after every attempt has been made, and sufficient time allowed, for the person to come to repentance.

Since we believe God is "long suffering, patient and kind", not wanting anyone to perish but come to repentance, we should always seek His Spirit and grace in these situations. The most difficult aspect of forgiveness-the emotional hurt, is the hardest to overcome. I don't think God readilly expects us to just "get over it" and move on .Healing takes time. May God provide us the grace needed when we face these kinds of trials. Amen?

In Jesus,
Bob

[Guest]

I think the problem in your scenario, Homer, is the net of complexities into which people weave themselves when they divorce and remarry. Could that be the reason Christ forbade it? Could that be the reason that if
one leaves his spouse (some translate "aphiemi" as "divorce" in this context) and takes up with another (some translate this as "marry", but this doesn't fit our modern concept of "marry"), he commits adultery against his first wife. That being the case, it is pretty difficult to stop committing adultery with his second wife, and return to the first. The man is to entangled, and possibly legally joined to the second.

I don't think the answer to such complexities is to throw away the biblical meaning of "forgiveness" and substitute for it a weaker definition.

I'll say this, however, concerning your scenario. I have heard of just such a case, where the forgiven man stayed married to his second wife, but after forgiveness, was good friends with his first again. In THAT respect, their relationship was restored.

[Guest]

.....if i can post to Michelle?

Hi Michelle,

1. I think I jumped to the conclusion that because you were 'just going by the things the rabbis taught', you were saying that what Jesus taught was fully complimentary to what the rabbis taught, and that Peter was fully comprehending.

2. I believe the opposite; that what Jesus taught was in contrast to what the rabbis taught and that Peter failed to comprehend.

1. Think: Introduction to Forgiving (what is it?), Forgiving 101 (includes how many times per day?)..."syllabii, curricula, subjects", etc. Jesus and the other rabbis taught about the same stuff (subjects)....does this help any? lol, GBY Michelle!

"Who did you have for Tithing?" asked one disciple to another.

"I had Rabbi Hillel but I dropped out."

"I heard he was easy coz you don't have to pay tithes on mint," said the disciple. "Have you heard of that new Rabbi, Jesus? He sez you have to pay tithes on money, mint, and added that you have to have mercy & justice!"

"Wow, he sounds interesting! When's his next class start? And where does he teach?"

"I know this one guy named Peter who has him. He teaches all over the place and I think you can transfer credits. I'm thinking about taking him too. Last week he taught from a boat; I heard it was pretty cool! Can I get back with you?"

Kinda like THAT, Michelle

2. Actually, Jesus was in agreement with what other rabbis taught; sometimes for the most part (though not totally very often), sometimes in only part, often with serious amendments, and at other times: not at all.

Anyways,
Rick