This is a difficult question for many people who want to do the right thing, but realize that the Scriptures themselves may not seem to be clear on this point. Yet after the basic fact that we should forgive others, this is the most important thing we need to understand.
First, consider the biblical indications that we should forgive others whether they are repentant or not. The Gospel of Mark records that Jesus said: “And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins” (Mark 11:25). This command does not specify that the other person must be sorry for what they have done in order for us to forgive them and it meshes with the evidence that Jesus himself asked for forgiveness for those who crucified him – who clearly were not sorry for what they had done (Luke 23:34).
On the other hand, the Gospel of Luke seems to say something different when it tells us that Jesus said: “… If your brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them. Even if they sin against you seven times in a day and seven times come back to you saying ‘I repent,’ you must forgive them” (Luke 17:3-4). This picture, of only forgiving those who repent, is backed up by another equally clear scripture:
If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector” (Matthew 18:15-18).
These scriptures may even seem to logically fit the fact that God does not forgive an individual until he or she repents of their wrongdoing (Luke 24:47, etc.) – so why, a Christian might ask, should we?
To see past this apparent contradiction in the Scriptures, and to understand what our responsibility is toward those who sin against us, we must understand that forgiveness has two parts, a mental and a physical part – that of the “heart” and that of the “hand” – it involves our attitude and our actions. In every situation we must forgive in our heart, but in some situations we do not proceed to the level of forgiving with our actions by resuming normal interaction as though nothing had happened. We will explain this, but first notice this fact regarding the scriptures we have looked at.
The words of Jesus in Mark 11 and his words on the Cross represent the essential first part of forgiveness – that of attitude. The person praying cannot act in a forgiving manner toward those who have sinned against him but who are elsewhere – any more than Christ could act on his forgiving attitude while he was hanging on the cross. On the other hand, the situation described by Jesus in Luke 17 is one regarding our actions of forgiveness. In that circumstance the person who has been wronged is interacting with and discussing the matter with the individual who has offended. And Matthew 18 specifically tells us that if interaction shows a person is unrepentant, the aggrieved person should treat them in a certain way – meaning act toward them in that way.
Once we understand the two parts of forgiveness, we see there is no real contradiction between Jesus’ statements. On the one hand we must always have an attitude of forgiveness – regardless of whether the offending person is sorry or not (Mark 11:23, Luke 17:3-4). On the other hand, if the person is not repentant or does not show any sign of being sorry for what they have done, we need not feel constrained to act as though nothing has happened and put ourselves in a situation where we are repeatedly hurt.
For example, if a Christian woman is hurt by spousal abuse, or her children are hurt by someone, the Scriptures are clear that she must forgive the injuring individual in her heart. But she need not place herself or her children in danger by acting as though nothing has happened – and staying in the situation. It is not being unforgiving to not extend the second half of forgiveness – resumption of normal interaction – it is simply wise in such cases (Proverbs 22:3, etc.).
There are a number of biblical examples of this principle in action. We find David, for example, who, although he clearly forgave King Saul for trying to kill him (2 Samuel 1:17-27), nevertheless did not return to normal interactions when he realized that Saul still desired his death (1 Samuel 20-23). So it should be with us. If the person who hurts us is not sorry, we must still have an attitude of forgiveness – forgiving them in our hearts – yet in serious situations we need not act on our forgiveness by accepting the person as though nothing had happened and thus placing ourselves or others in repeated jeopardy.
As for the fact that God does not forgive unless a person repents, we must always remember that God has the power and the wisdom to know if a person truly is repentant or not. We cannot read the minds of others and we cannot judge a person’s motives in the same way. People can say “Sorry” and may or may not mean it, while others may not express themselves well, but they may be sincerely sorry. Precisely because we cannot always discern the attitude of another and the reality of a situation perfectly, we must always forgive in our hearts and minds as God clearly instructs us – knowing that ultimately God will judge whether the individual was repentant or not.
Understanding this principle is of the greatest importance in our Christian lives. Knowing that forgiving others involves unconditional forgiveness from the heart, but conditional forgiveness “of the hand” can help us fulfill God’s will in our lives in a balanced and wise manner – just as God intended.
*For more information on the topic of Forgiveness, download our free e-book How to Forgive, here.
“Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ… For each one should carry his own load” (Galatians 6:2, 5).
At first sight, the apostle Paul’s comments that we should bear one another’s burdens and bear our own load might seem to be contradictory – especially in the King James and some other translations which use the word “burden” in both verses 2 and 5. In fact, sceptics have often pointed to these verses in Galatians as supposed evidence of contradictions within the Bible. Apart from the fact that it is highly unlikely that Paul would not know he was contradicting himself if this were the case, there is an important reason why these verses say what they do.
When Paul says that we should bear one another’s burdens in Galatians 6:2, the word “burdens” is translated from the Greek baros, which means literally a “weight,” or figuratively, “something that is oppressive” and which weighs us down. The burden can be physical or psychological – it can be a spiritual, emotional, or mental burden just as much as a physical one.
In Galatians 6:5 the word phortion that Paul uses is a slightly different one – though it still refers to a burden of some kind. The major difference is that this word seems to apply to burdens that cannot be transferred to others – they are burdens that we must somehow carry ourselves.
The different words Paul used show that he had something different in mind in these two verses, and that the ideas are not contradictory. In verse 2 Paul clearly refers to the willingness we must all have to help those who need help. That is why he continues in the latter part of that verse by saying “and so fulfill the law of Christ” – the law of loving others as ourselves. But in verse 5 Paul is referring to the other side of the coin – reminding us that it is our responsibility to bear our own burdens as much as we are able (2 Thessalonians 3:10–12; etc.). In saying this, Paul shows that his instruction to bear the burdens of our neighbors cannot be used to condone the lazy or conniving who would attempt to be supported by taking advantage of others.
What sceptics do not seem to understand is that Galatians 6:2 and 6:5 do not represent conflicting commands. It is possible for Christians to both bear their own burdens, while at the same time helping to bear the burdens of others. Paul is emphatic that we all must do what we can, but when a person is in true need he is equally emphatic that we have a responsibility to help them. But the two can be – and often are – simultaneous. At the crucifixion of Christ, after an agonizing beating and whipping, Jesus needed the help of someone to carry his cross (Matthew 27:32), but even as he accepted this help he was bearing the sins of others (1 Peter 2:24).
Paul’s two statements are no different from those found in the book of Proverbs that tell us: “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes” (Proverbs 26:4–5) – rather than being contradictory, the two statements apply to different aspects of a situation. Galatians 6:2–5 makes it clear that every Christian is called to share the burdens of others, yet at the same time to take responsibility for the things that God has called them to carry themselves.
But we should never see this situation as a negative one. God promises to help each of us to bear even the burdens we must carry (Matthew 11:28–30; etc.), and he gives us all the opportunity to gladly help others with the same outgiving of love that he shows in helping us. As David tells us, “Praise be to the Lord, to God our Savior, who daily bears our burdens” (Psalm 68:19).
The English expression “above all” is a superlative: there can normally only be one thing that is “above all” in any given category – such as the highest mountain or the largest ocean. In the New Testament, several Greek phrases function in the same way – they also connote something that is more important than any other among the things being discussed. For example, the apostle James tells us “Above all, my brothers and sisters, do not swear” (James 5:12) – meaning that is the most important thing his readers must keep in mind in the context he is speaking about.
The apostle Peter uses the expression in the same way in his epistles, but interestingly he uses it not once but three times – each time of a different thing:
“Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins” (1 Peter 4:8).
“Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things” (2 Peter 1:20).
“Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires” (2 Peter 3:3).
At first sight these statements seem to be unrelated. They certainly speak of different things that the apostle urges us to keep foremost in mind – though it may seem strange that he mentions two things to keep in mind “above all” in the same epistle. Yet there is perhaps a thread that connects them all.
In the first of these verses, Peter’s subject is obvious – it is love of one another that he emphasizes must be paramount in our concerns. We must not only love each other, he says, but we must love each other deeply.
In the second verse the subject may seem a somewhat narrow one to be regarded as something “above all else,” but the context of the statement helps us to understand what the verse is emphasizing. Peter is not simply talking about understanding Scripture, but about our perception of it in a context of faith. The epistle’s first verses tell us that Peter writes: “To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours” (2 Peter 1:1).
A few verses later Peter expands the theme of faith: “make every effort to add to your faith goodness” (2 Peter 1:5). Then in verse 16 Peter begins a defense of his readers’ faith: “For we did not follow cleverly devised stories” (2 Peter 1:16); in verse 19 he adds “We also have the prophetic message” (2 Peter 1:19) It is in continuation of this thought that he then writes “Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20). Peter’s point is that our faith is well grounded – something he urges us to place at the forefront of our minds.
In the final verse in which he uses the expression “above all” the apostle tells us “Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come” (2 Peter 3:3) and once again we must look at its context. The third chapter of 2 Peter develops the idea that scoffers will come who, if they are able, will undermine the very hope of every believer in the return of our Lord: “They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised?” (2 Peter 3:4), and Peter immediately follows this warning with a defense of the Christian hope regarding Christ’s return (verses 5–12) – concluding with the words “But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells. So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this” (verses 13–14 , emphases added). Twice Peter stresses that which the believer is looking forward to – hoping for. The context of 2 Peter 3:3 is clearly that it is paramount that we are not affected by scoffers and that we can continue to hope in the reality of the Lord’s return.
Whether consciously or not, Peter’s three references to things that we must keep in mind “above all” are related in that they have to do with the great triad of love, faith, and hope* (or “faith, hope, and love” as Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 13:13), that make up the centrality of Christian life. There is no contradiction in what Peter writes – these three qualities are, indeed, things that we must strive toward “above all.”
* Download our free e-book These Three Remain:Why Faith, Hope and Love Are Even More Important Than You Realize here .
News media at this time of year often have stories of extravagant gifts given by the ultra-rich to their families or friends. Although some of these gifts – the cars, jewelry, and other items – may seem incredibly expensive to most of us, they often are small compared to history’s greatest gifts. To mention only two examples, the famous Taj Mahal monument in India was a gift from a Mughal Emperor for his wife that in today’s value would be worth almost one billion dollars. In 1778 America signed a treaty of alliance with France and in return was given a gift of supplies and money to help in the Revolutionary War. In today’s value, the French gift was worth about $20 billion.
But even incredibly large gifts such as these are dwarfed by the gift the prophet Isaiah foretold:
“For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” ( Isaiah 9:6).
Notice that this was not just to be a child who would be born, but one who would specifically be given by God. This, of course, refers to the messiah Jesus Christ who the apostle John tells us was born because “God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).
We are all familiar with John’s words – a scripture that could well be called the “gift message” that comes with the greatest gift ever made – but we may not be as familiar with some of the other things the New Testament tells us about God’s gift. Consider what the following scriptures show us:
Magnitude of the gift
“To them that received Him as Savior, to them gave He the power to become the children of God” (John 1:12).
Undeserved nature of the gift
“For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23); “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God” (Ephesians 2:8).
Certainty of the gift
“for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable” (Romans 11:29); “Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows” (James 1:17).
Result of the gift
“Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin … For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!” (Romans 5:16–17).
These are certainly things we can ponder at this time of year and whenever we hear of extravagant gifts. No matter how massive some human gifts may be, God’s gift to us goes beyond the combination of all other gifts ever given. And while we may measure even the largest human gifts in monetary or other physical ways, we should remember the truth behind the apostle Paul’s words when he wrote: “Thanks be to God for his indescribable gift!” (2 Corinthians 9:15).
Archaeology is something most people think of as either Indiana Jones-like adventuring for strange artifacts in exotic settings, or as the realm of technicians using state-of-the-art equipment to almost magically analyze or date artifacts such as the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Shroud of Turin in scientific laboratories.
The reality, of course, is usually at neither of those extremes, and many people would be surprised to learn how archaeologists must often cope with very limited data or techniques that are far from perfect. An example is carbon-14 dating which most people presume can be applied to anything made from organic material to find its age. The reality here is that carbon-14 dating is actually hampered by the fact that for the period of approximately 800-400 BC it is affected by a calibration issue (called the Hallstatt plateau) which means that material from that period cannot be dated with any certainty.
This problem is particularly significant for biblical studies, as the period 800-400 BC is a vitally important one in Near Eastern history – a period in which many important biblical events such as the destruction of Jerusalem and other Judean cities occurred. But now the application of another dating method – that of archaeomagnetism – shows great promise for biblical archaeology in general and this period of biblical history in particular. The method works on things such as pottery sherds, bricks, roof tiles and ovens (which are found on most archaeological habitation sites) that record the Earth’s magnetic field as they are burned at high temperatures. Because the direction of earth’s magnetic field has changed over history – and the dates of the changing directions can be calculated – we can look at the magnetic field “fixed” in a burnt object and tell when it was burned. This is particularly useful in situations where biblical cities were affected by Aramean, Assyrian, and Babylonian military campaigns that left behind destruction layers.
The archaeomagnetic dating technique has actually been used by archaeologists for several decades, but is only now being used with success on archaeological sites of biblical significance. Recently, archaeologists working in Israel reconstructed the magnetic field recorded in twenty burnt destruction layers at seventeen archaeological sites. The study included the analysis of over a thousand specimens from some 144 samples, and the recovered data meshes well with what historical anchors we have for the time period.
As the Times of Israel reported: “The method utilizes excavation layers that have already been reliably dated to create baseline anchors for the archaeomagnetic data, which can then be applied to other sites that until now had been impossible to confidently date. The more anchors are created, the researchers say, the more finely calibrated the dating method will become” (25 October 2022).
This means that archaeologists working on biblically significant sites will now be able to date objects and whole archaeological layers that were previously difficult or impossible to date with accuracy – especially in the problematic period of 800-400 BC. So archaeomagnetic dating is now being used as a complementary dating tool that promises to further improve our understanding of the archaeology of biblical times – and ultimately, of the Bible itself.
Recent Comments