Active and Passive Forgiveness

Active and Passive Forgiveness

by | Jun 18, 2017 | Forgiveness

Picture

​Most people tend to think of forgiveness in a somewhat limited way,  as though it were a matter of choice – we either choose to forgive those who wrong us or we do not.

But even as Christians, knowing  that we must forgive if we expect to be forgiven ourselves,  we do not always realize that there are different degrees of forgiveness and that we must be careful not to accept something that feels like forgiveness on our part, but really is not.

The simplest way to understand this is to realize the difference between what we might call active and passive forgiveness. 

Passive Forgiveness

When we find it difficult to forgive someone, we sometimes forgive them passively.  This means that we may stop ourselves from talking and thinking negatively about the person and certainly from considering any kind of revenge or “getting even”  with them.  Yet the level of forgiveness stops there – at a kind of “letter of the law” level.   Ultimately we may settle into a kind of indifference toward the individual. We do not see the  person  who has wronged us as either a friend or an enemy, but we feel  content in not actively being negative about him or her.  Unfortunately, if we fall into this kind of passive attitude, we may never cross over into a more positive attitude of true forgiveness toward the person.
  
How do we know if we are guilty of this kind of minimal, “passive” forgiveness?   We can often determine this by considering how we react to the person.  Do we tend to keep interaction with them to a minimum, or at least to a lesser degree than before they hurt us in some way?  Do we never really say or do anything positive to them?  If someone else says something complimentary about the person, do we simply smile and not comment?  Any of these reactions can indicate that our relationship with them is a passive compromise and not the result of true forgiveness. 

Active Forgiveness

Unlike passive forgiveness, true active forgiveness goes beyond  emotional and spiritual indifference.  That is why true forgiveness is so hard to accomplish when we have been deeply hurt. It’s not human to want to help the person who hurts us – especially if the person who hurt us clearly did so intentionally.  Yet completely forgiving someone means that, regardless of what they have done, we treat them in the same way we did before they hurt us, that we live with a feeling of compassion for the other person.
 
That is the kind of forgiveness demonstrated by Christ in his words on the cross: “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34),  by Stephen  regarding those who killed him: “Lord, do not hold this sin against them”  (Acts 7:60), and by countless Christians who have been wronged since that time.   In fact, these two prayers show us how we can know that our forgiveness is active and not passive.  We do not pray for those we only nominally forgive.  If we can pray for those we need to forgive, we are actively forgiving them.

Active forgiveness does not mean we need to stay in abusive or hurtful relationships or situations. We must certainly forgive endlessly and without restriction (Matthew 18:21-22), but sometimes it is necessary to forgive from a distance in order to stop the wrongful cycle of hurt or harm (Acts 12:17, etc.).

But whether we are able to stay in situations or it is wiser to remove ourselves from them, our forgiveness must always be active and full. Whenever possible our forgiveness should be accompanied with active love: “… Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you” (Luke 26:27-28).  Such a fully active demonstration of forgiveness is not always possible, but as we saw in the prayers of Jesus and Stephen, we can always forgive actively by praying for those who have hurt or offended us.   Anything less is passive forgiveness.
 
* See also our article “The Second Step of Forgiveness.”

Root and Branch

Root and Branch

by | Jun 4, 2017 | Overcoming

Picture

 
“Root and branch” is an ancient Hebrew expression, but one that is easily understood today. The “roots and branches” of something represent its entirety, just as the roots and branches of an actual tree represent the whole plant – as when we read in the Book of Job “His roots dry up below and his branches wither above” (Job 18:16), or in Malachi “…Not a root or a branch will be left to them” (Malachi 4:1).

Sometimes the expression can also mean the beginning and end, the past and future, as when it is used metaphorically to represent Christ himself as the “Root and branch” – the one who both lived before and was also the descendant – of David, the son of Jesse (Revelation 22:16).

But let’s go back to the basic meaning of “root and branch” meaning “the whole thing” or “every part.” It’s a simple metaphor for completeness that can remind us of an important lesson in Christian living. When we read how Jesus told his disciples “If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away…” (Matthew 18:8), we understand that this does not mean literally, and that Christ was talking about sin rather than literal body parts.  But we may miss the fact that “hand and foot” was a parallel expression to “root and branch” – it could mean every part of something. Christ’s clear teaching was that we should become perfect (Matthew 5:48), and sin must be cast out of our lives in its entirety – no part of it must remain in us.
 
Now let’s take that understanding back to the idea of “root and branch.”  Most people know that if you cut down a tree you must also dig out the roots or the plant may grow back up from the roots left in the soil. But it is also true that if we cut down a  tree and even dig out the roots, but leave some of the branches lying around on the ground, sometimes the branches may produce roots from which the tree will grow again.

What does all this have to do with Christian living?  Simply that we must always remember that sin must be torn out of our lives “root and branch” or, like a partially cut down tree, it will return again.   Digging out the roots of sin is equivalent to removing the thoughts that initiate the growth of sin in our minds. If we remove the outward visible branches – for example, pornographic materials from our home – the problem will still grow back again if the wrongful thoughts are not completely removed from our minds.  In the opposite way, even if we decide, for example, that we will turn from alcohol dependency, but we leave “branches”  such as wine “for cooking” around our home, it will only be a matter of time before those “branches” take root again as they initiate thoughts – the “roots” of the problem – in our minds. 
​
These examples are obvious ones, but the principle applies in many situations. As the apostle Paul wrote: “A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough” (Galatians 5:9 and 1 Corinthians 5:6). Leaving either a few roots (thoughts) or a few branches (anything that triggers the thoughts) in our lives will result in the problem growing back again.   There is only one way to fully put a sin out of our lives – it has to be removed “root and branch.”

King David: Was He Really a Man after God’s own Heart?

King David: Was He Really a Man after God’s own Heart?

by | May 21, 2017 | Difficult Scriptures

Picture

“… the LORD has sought out a man after his own heart  and appointed him ruler of his people …” (1 Samuel 13:14).
 
This is a verse that often comes to mind when we think about the character of David, king of ancient Israel, writer of so many of the Bible’s psalms, and ancestor of Jesus Christ himself.  Yet the expression “a man after [God’s] own heart” probably does not mean what we often think it means at all.

Many of us have speculated on the expression and wondered – why would David be described as a man after God’s own heart – something not said of other great biblical figures?  What earned David that description?  Was it his total commitment to God or some other aspect of his character?

It is actually likely that no aspect of David’s character is in mind, and that it is God who is the focus of this verse.   The expression “the LORD has sought out a man after his own heart” reflects a standard ancient Near Eastern manner of expressing someone’s desires and wishes – things they wanted “in their own heart.”   Ancient Babylonian texts use the same expression of a god or a king installing a ruler of their choice.   In fact, the Nebuchadnezzar Chronicle (c. 599 BC) of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II tells how that king conquered Jerusalem and replaced the Jewish king Jeconiah with a king of his own choice – Zedekiah – exactly as recorded in the Bible (2 Kings 24:17).

In both the Bible and the texts of the nations that surrounded ancient Israel, the expression simply means that the new king would be to the liking of the one installing him. It is also paralleled  by the biblical description of God’s replacement of the High Priest Eli with Samuel: “I will raise up for myself a faithful priest, who will do according to what is in my heart and mind. I will firmly establish his priestly house, and they will minister before my anointed one always” (1 Samuel 2:35).

So the expression “a man after his own heart” used of David in 1 Samuel 13:14 is not saying that David’s “heart” or attitude  was somehow like that of God, that he was a man of extraordinary righteousness or moral excellence,  but that God had chosen someone according  to his own heart or wishes – someone he felt he could trust to be obedient and to do the work he was given to do.

That is why in the New Testament in Paul’s speech at Antioch, the apostle  said: “After removing Saul, he made David their king. God testified concerning him: ‘I have found David son of Jesse, a man after my own heart; he will do everything I want him to do” (Acts 13:22).  It is not that God had found David to be “like his own heart,” but that he had chosen a man according to his own wishes.

Finally, the Bible’s chronological notations show that although David was about twenty-three years old when he became king, he was only a very young child when Saul was told that God had selected someone “after his own heart.”  David had not yet had time to demonstrate his character in order to qualify as someone with traits like those of God. Rather, 1 Samuel 13:14 means that God was intent on installing a king according to his own standards rather than according to the desires of the Israelites who had clamored for a king just like those of the nations around them (1 Samuel 8:5).  A man of powerful presence, yet with pride and many other failings, Saul was exactly the type of leader Israel’s neighbors had. 
​  
God then chose not a typical leader, as Saul had been, but someone of his own choosing who would be a better ruler.  The Old Testament shows that many aspects of David’s character were indeed admirable and that he did rule over Israel wisely and well, but the verse we have examined does not address that fact. It simply shows that God chose David, not why David was chosen.  ​​​​

With Eyes Wide Open

With Eyes Wide Open

by | May 14, 2017 | Prayer

Picture

When we think of prayer, many of our ideas may be more cultural than biblical. For example, different cultures hold their hands in different ways in prayer. But the examples of prayer we find in the Bible rarely speak of how the hands are held –and when they do it is usually to say that the praying person’s hands were outstretched to the heavens rather than in the manner with which most of us are familiar.  How we extend our hearts in prayer is clearly more important than how we hold our hands.
    
In the same way, when we think of prayer we may think of closing our eyes, but this is not necessary or  biblical.  We can certainly pray with our eyes closed just as well as with them open, but the reverse is also just as true.  In some parts of the world, where Christianity is outlawed and punishable by severe penalties, believers routinely pray with their eyes open to avoid unnecessary arrest and punishment.

In fact, praying with open eyes was probably the norm in biblical times.  On two occasions when Jesus prayed to the Father, we are told that he looked up to heaven.  In the first instance he was giving thanks: “Then Jesus looked up and said, ‘Father, I thank you that you have heard me’” (John 11:41), and in the second he was making a request: “After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: “Father … Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you” (John 17:1). Interestingly, the only other time a praying person’s eyes are mentioned in the New Testament is in the story of the repentant tax collector who was so distraught that when he prayed “… He would not even look up to heaven” (Luke 18:13), indicating that looking up to heaven would have been the normal way to pray.

There is a great deal of corroborating evidence to show that prayer in the Bible and in the early Church usually involved praying with open eyes, but acceptable prayer has nothing to do with whether our eyes are open or closed – any more than how we hold our hands.  Sometimes we may wish to close our eyes in order to not be distracted by things happening around us, but often we may prefer to keep our eyes open to see that for which we are giving thanks or to feel a closer connection with the One who is “near to all who call on him” (Psalm 145:18).

“Giants” or “Mighty Warriors”?

“Giants” or “Mighty Warriors”?

by | Apr 30, 2017 | Difficult Scriptures

Picture

Scripture in Focus:  “There were giants on the earth in those days, and also after that…” (Genesis 6:4 KJV).

Many of us are familiar with children’s books illustrating the biblical story of David and the giant Goliath (1 Samuel 17:4–7) – with pictures showing the young David overshadowed by a huge figure perhaps twice as tall as himself.

​Giants are first mentioned in the Old Testament as early as Genesis 6, where we are told “There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward…”  But are these stories of giants just “tall tales” as many presume –  or, if they are based in fact, what exactly are the stories talking about?
  
The word in Genesis 6:4 translated “giant” in the King James Version and some other versions of the Bible is the Hebrew word nephilim, and the actual meaning of the word is unknown – which is why it is simply left untranslated in most modern versions such as the  NIV, ESV, HCSB, etc. 

The “Nephilim” are also mentioned later in the Scriptures.  When the Israelite spies returned from their reconnaissance in the Promised Land, they reported: “We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them” (Numbers 13:33). This description does make the Nephilim sound like giants. 

But in the book of Ezekiel the Nephilim are spoken of simply as great warriors: “But they do not lie with the fallen warriors of old [Hebrew Nephilim], who went down to the realm of the dead with their weapons of war – their swords placed under their heads and their shields resting on their bones – though these warriors also had terrorized the land of the living” (Ezekiel 32:27).

So the exact meaning of Nephilim is uncertain – possibly the word refers to giants, or it may mean only something like mighty warriors.   It is clear, however, that some of the descendants of the Nephilim exhibited the characteristic of great height.   We are told the size of some warriors of this group, but there are still uncertainties.

Goliath, for example, is said to have been “six cubits and a span” tall (approximately 9 ft. 9 in.) according to the traditional Masoretic Hebrew text, but the Septuagint and an ancient Hebrew manuscript found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, designated 4QSama, list Goliath’s height as four cubits and a span (approximately 6 ft. 9 in.).

Yet even the great heights recorded for “giants” like Goliath are not outside of possibility.  Today, in 2017, the tallest man living is Sultan Kösen  of Turkey who was officially measured at 8 ft. 2.8 in. (251 cm.) in Ankara, Turkey, on 08 February 2011; but  Robert Wadlow, who lived in the United States 1918–1940, was measured at 8 ft. 11.1 in. (272 cm. – just a little under 9 ft. and almost as tall as even the greatest measurement found in biblical manuscripts for Goliath.
​  
Even today, some human populations are much taller than others, though gigantism of the kind recorded in the Bible is usually the result of an over-production of growth hormone in the pituitary gland.  We can conclude, therefore, that it remains uncertain whether the “Nephilim” of the biblical accounts were all extremely tall or simply mighty warriors among whom some were “giants,” but the recorded heights of the tallest of these individuals are certainly within the realm of actual possibility.