It might seem strange to talk of putting a price on forgiveness, yet that is exactly what Jesus did in his parable* of the unmerciful servant (Matthew 18:21-35). In that parable Jesus painted a detailed word picture of a king’s servant who owed the ruler ten thousand “talents” (vs. 24).
A talent was not a unit of currency, but a unit of weight. The NIV translates this verse “ten thousand bags of gold,” but it is far more likely that silver would have been the precious metal involved in the transaction, as even ten thousand talents of silver would represent an almost unimaginably large amount. In fact, ten thousand talents of silver would be too large to have normally been a personal debt. The word “servant” Matthew uses could refer to a king’s high-ranking servant who had control of massive amounts of money as part of his work.
By contrast, the second servant in the parable who owed the king’s servant money was doubtless a far less powerful individual who had borrowed “one hundred denarii” (KJV “a hundred pennies,” NIV “a hundred silver coins”). We read in the parable that the servant who owed a huge amount that was forgiven was himself unwilling to forgive the individual who owed him a much smaller debt.
To get a true sense of the relative amounts Jesus spoke of, notice that in another parable – that of the men working in the vineyard (Matthew 20:1-16) – Matthew specifically tells us that an acceptable rate of pay for a laboring man was one denarius per day (vs. 1, etc.). So, the debt of the minor servant who owed the king’s servant 100 denarii was the equivalent of a hundred days pay – some four months of wages calculated on a regular workweek – and certainly not a small amount.
But to get a sense of the debt for which the king’s servant was responsible, we must realize that a “talent” was equal to approximately 6,000 denarii in value, so that debt equaled ten thousand times about six thousand days pay for an average laborer – some 60 million days or 200 thousand years pay at 300 workdays per year – based on talents of silver, not gold.
So the price of the forgiveness given by the king to his servant in Christ’s parable was an astronomically high one – far beyond the realm of any possibility of being repaid. But it is easy to think that this parable was simply teaching that our neighbor’s spiritual debts to us are far less than what we “owe” God as a debt of forgiveness, but while that is true, the parable has greater depth than that.
Clearly, the king in the parable represents God, and the king’s servant represents us as debtors to God through our sin, while the minor servant represents those who are “indebted” to us through sins against us. But we should remember that the amount owed by the minor servant – a hundred days’ pay – was not a trivial amount. It is important to realize that Christ was not downplaying the “debts” or sins of others against us – rather his parable admits that those who sin against us may indeed sin to a substantial degree, leaving us significantly hurt.
But the parable also puts that hurt in perspective by showing that the astronomically high debt we have incurred through our own cumulative sins far outweighs whatever sin may have been committed against us – no matter how bad it was. As it is given in Christ’s example, the story shows a ratio of one million to one – the sins of others against us represent one millionth of our own sins against God. That is why Jesus ended his parable by saying that the unmerciful servant was severely punished by the king, and by saying “This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart” (vs. 35).
Ultimately, however, Jesus’ parable is not about numbers or balance sheets. Its primary message, of course, is that we ought to forgive as our King has forgiven us. And we should not forget the context in which the parable was given. Matthew makes it clear that Jesus told this story in response to Peter asking how many times we should forgive those who sin against us: “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?” Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times. Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king… (Matthew 18:21-23, emphasis added).
According to Jesus’ answer to Peter’s question, the forgiveness given to us is extravagant both in amount and in repetition, and finally it is extravagant in terms of the attitude with which the forgiveness is given. True forgiveness, Jesus tells us, is so extravagant that it cannot be repaid; it is so extensive that it does not run out in our lifetime; and it is so truly meant from the heart that no price can really be placed on it.
*Download our free e-book on the Parables of Jesus here.
The US Arizona burns in Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941
This is the story of a hero, a villain, and a saint – who were all the same person. His name was Mitsuo Fuchida and although most Americans may not recognize his name, he was a true hero in his native country of Japan – because Fuchida was the Japanese pilot who led the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 that led to the deaths of some 2,400 Americans.
Of course, his leading role in the attack on Pearl Harbor also made Fuchida a villain of historic proportions in American eyes, so the same individual became both a super-hero and a super-villain in his lifetime – but his story does not end there. Due to a chain of remarkable events, Fuchida would excel in one more way before the end of his life.
T. Martin Bennett, the author of the recently published book Wounded Tiger, the story of Fuchida’s life, tells how two Americans who suffered greatly from Japanese atrocities during World War II changed the Japanese airman forever.
The first American was Jacob DeShazer, a US airman who participated in the famed Doolittle Raid on Tokyo in April 1942 and was captured by the Japanese. DeShazer was converted to Christianity after reading a Bible while enduring over three years of mistreatment and torture as a Japanese prisoner of war. As a result, the captive airman forgave and began treating the guards who tormented him with love. Remarkably, they responded by treating him with kindness. After the war, while living in Japan, DeShazer met and became friends with Mitsuo Fuchida who was deeply influenced by the American.
The other American who would influence Fuchida, although he never met her, was Peggy Covell who grew up in Japan in a family of Christian teachers. During the war, her parents were teachers at Christian schools in the Philippines and were killed there by Japanese soldiers in 1943. Covell responded not with hatred, but with forgiveness. Returning to the US, she volunteered at a hospital in Utah that treated Japanese prisoners of war. According to Bennett’s book, the prisoners called her an “angel,” because she was so kind to them. One of the men she treated, Kazuo Kanegasaki, was the engineer responsible for maintaining the aircraft of the Japanese war hero/villain Fuchida. When the war was over, engineer Kanegasaki met his former pilot and deeply moved Fuchida with his story of Peggy Covell’s kindness despite what she had suffered from the Japanese.
The influence of DeShazer’s and Covell’s forgiveness and kindness, along with several events in Fuchida’s life, led to the hero/villain’s conversion and deep acceptance of Christianity. While according to Bennett’s book, the warrior airman could have lived out his life in fame and prosperity in Japan, “Instead, he lived in poverty, telling the world what God had done for him – which was to save him from a life of hatred.” Fuchida also became an evangelist and traveled throughout Japan, the United States, and Europe preaching the word of Christ, forgiveness, and salvation – often in presentations titled “From Pearl Harbor To Calvary.” Fuchida also came to deeply love his old enemy, the United States, and made many American friends. Tellingly, his children became U.S. citizens.
And so, the man who had become both a super-hero and a super-villain for his exploits based in hatred, became through his conversion and service one of those who love God and their fellow beings – one of those the Bible (Romans 1:7 and throughout the epistles, in the ESV and other Bible versions) calls “saints.” Like the apostle Paul, Mitsuo Fuchida came to love those he had hated, and turned from trying to destroy them to serving them – from using his warrior zeal for evil, to using it for good.
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.
The Bible is clear that we should confess our moral and spiritual failures, but the subject of confession can be confusing even for long-time Christians. Does the Bible teach that it is a public or a private thing? Should we confess all or just some of our faults to others? Do we need a priest or minister in order to confess? Understanding what the Bible teaches on this topic can help us answer these and other questions we may have on the subject.
There are actually a number of different words in the Bible that are translated “confess” or “confession” in English. In the Old Testament the most important word translated “confess” is the Hebrew word yada which can mean “to praise / give glory,” or “to confess an offence.” When Joshua tells the thief Achan “give glory to the LORD, the God of Israel, and honor him. Tell me what you have done; do not hide it from me” (Joshua 7:19), he is using the word yada and we can see both senses of the word – to give praise or glory, and to confess – in this verse. When we confess our sins, we are acknowledging God is right and we are wrong, so we are praising or giving glory to God in addition to admitting our own faults.
In the New Testament there are also several words translated “confess,” but the most important is homologeō which is a compound word meaning “to say the same.” Just like yada in the Old Testament, this Greek word can be used in the sense of praising God (acknowledging that God is God and that he is right) or confessing that we are sinful (acknowledging that God is right in his judgment).
This dual meaning of the biblical words translated confess is the reason why Bible verses seem to use the word in two very different ways – positively, to confess our faith, and negatively, to confess our faults. Thus, when the apostle Paul wrote “And every tongue [will] confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Philippians 2:11) and when Matthew tells us regarding the people who went to John the Baptist “Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River” (Matthew 3:60), they are using the same Greek word – homologeō.
But how exactly should we go about the kind of confession that involves admitting our faults and sins? Some biblical verses seem to speak of private confession to God (for example, David’s psalm of repentance, Psalm 51), while others speak of public confession (for example, Acts 19:18-19 which tells us “Many of those who believed now came and openly confessed what they had done. A number who had practiced sorcery brought their scrolls together and burned them publicly.”
A good way to understand the way in which confession should be accomplished is found in the statement that our confession should usually be as wide as our sin. This means that if we have sinned secretly, in most cases we should confess the sin to God and we need not confess it to others (more on this later). However, if we have sinned against another person, we should usually confess the sin to God and to the individual we have wronged. Finally, if we have sinned in a way that affects many people, we should confess it to God and sometimes also in public.
Notice that in explaining this principle of confession we have used the words “usually” and “sometimes.” This is because there is no hard and fast rule given in the Bible or even that we can make ourselves. We may need to act differently according to different circumstances. For example, in the case of a secret, personal sin we might wish to ask our pastor or a trusted Christian friend to pray for us in dealing with the sin we are fighting. This is the principle of accountability which can be very helpful in some cases, but it is a principle that should always be applied with wisdom and care – we should never simply “unload” our sins and faults on another person simply because they are a Christian.
When we realize that circumstances affect how confession to others is managed (in every circumstance we should confess our sins to God, of course), we can better understand the apostle James’ words with which we began this short article. In context, James tells us: “Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective” (James 5:16). Here, we see that James is talking about confession to elders of the church (vs. 14) regarding sins that may have brought sickness upon us or prevented our healing (vss. 14-15). So this is not speaking of confession in all circumstances. Second, notice that James speaks of confessing our sins to “one another,” which indicates that in some circumstances confession should be mutual. Certainly, the New Testament shows us that it is Jesus Christ who is our true mediator and the one through whom we are forgiven (“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness”– 1 John 1:9), so our attitude is never one of looking to others for forgiveness, but simply for help in fulfilling the responsibility of repentance and growth that we all share.
In summary, the Bible teaching on the matter of confession is not one in which there is one rule for every circumstance. We should always confess our faults to God, but we should use wisdom, care, and discretion in deciding how widely the confession of certain sins should be made to others.
“… go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you’” (Mark 16:7).
One of the unique aspects of the Gospel of Mark is that account’s inclusion of details regarding the apostle Peter. Most scholars believe that Peter was, in fact, one of the chief sources for much of the information Mark compiled, and this would account for the many instances where we find facts most likely recalled by Peter himself.
But Mark also records details that relate to Peter from other sources. One particularly interesting example is found in the account of the women who visited the tomb of Jesus shortly after the resurrection and who were instructed to tell the disciples and Peter to go to Galilee where they would see Jesus (Mark 16:7).
Notice the message was to “… his disciples and Peter …” – not “his disciples, including Peter…,” and we can see a whole world of significance in that expression. Saying “… his disciples and Peter …” clearly positions Peter alongside, not within, the fellowship of the disciples. Peter’s fall in denying Jesus three times (Matthew 26:34) left the previously foremost apostle suddenly on the outside of the group he had previously led.
Peter was repentant, of course (Matthew 26:75), but he had to learn that we cannot deny Jesus and still be considered one of his followers (Matthew 10:33, 2 Timothy 2:12, etc.). Peter’s full reconciliation with the resurrected Jesus would occur later in Galilee (John 21:15-19), but at this point Peter was still looking at his relationship with God from the outside, not from within the group of the disciples.
Yet despite his tragic failure, the divine message was not one of “tell the disciples but not Peter…”, it was one of “tell the disciples and Peter…”. This must have been of great encouragement to the well-meaning fisherman. By including him in the message – even at somewhat of a distance – Peter was given hope that God still desired to work with him. That hope was fulfilled in the message Jesus gave Peter when they met in Galilee:
Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.” Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.” The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my sheep” (John 21:15-18).
It is often said that Jesus asked Peter if he still loved him three times – once for each of Peter’s denials – but it is clear that Jesus was also driving home his point, that if Peter still loved him, he offered Peter full reconciliation and authorized him to continue the work to which he had been called.
It is a principle that applies to all of us. When we fail in some way in our own lives, we may feel that we have put ourselves outside of the family of believers, and in some cases that may be what we have done (1 John 1:6). But at those times the resurrection message to Peter applies to us also. It is a tremendously encouraging message that we are still positioned, if we choose, to return to full fellowship (1 John 1:7) – a fellowship that is based on affirmation and not on denial, on obedience and not on sin (1 John 2:1-2, 4-6). That is a message that brought hope to Peter with the words “… and Peter …”, and it is a message that offers ongoing hope and encouragement to all who wish to return to fellowship with the resurrected Christ.
We all remember the story of the teacher of the law who asked Jesus, “Who is my Neighbor?” This was the question that prompted Jesus to reply with the Parable of the Good Samaritan – showing that even our enemies are neighbors when it comes to the law of God.
But what if the teacher had asked the question in a slightly different way, saying, “Who is my Friend?” Could the answer to that question also impact our understanding of the Way of Christianity? We don’t have any indication in the New Testament of that question being asked of Jesus, but we do have Jesus’ answer to it, nevertheless.
In his Gospel, Matthew tells the story of Jesus’ betrayal in the Garden of Gethsemane. Judas Iscariot, the disciple turned traitor, had led a group of soldiers and other armed men to where he knew Christ would be in order to betray him for a cash reward. As Judas approached Jesus in the dark of night and greeted him with a kiss in order to identify him to those who were to arrest him, Matthew records Jesus’ surprising words: “ ‘Do what you came for, friend.’ Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him” (Matthew 26:50).
Think about this. Jesus was not one to soften the truth. He was the one who called the Pharisees “whitened sepulchers” and a “brood of vipers” – to their faces. But at the very moment of his betrayal , Jesus did not call Judas all the things we probably would have done. He did not call Judas “Traitor!” “Enemy!” “Back-Stabber!” – he did not even call him “False Friend!” Amazingly, he just called him “friend.”
Now if we want to get technical, the word the Bible uses to record what Jesus called Judas was not philos, the Greek word usually translated “friend” and meaning “dear” in the sense of a close friend. It uses the word hetairos meaning “friend” in the sense of a comrade, one who is a friend without necessarily having any affectionate relationship. But he did call Judas by a word that means “friend” in the general sense (Matthew also uses the word in this sense in Matthew 20:13 and Matthew 22:12).
How do we apply his example? The Old Testament gives us some clues. Hebrew has a word, merea, which is very similar in meaning to the Greek hetairos – it also means friend in the sense of companion or comrade and it is found in Job’s words: “He who withholds kindness from a friend forsakes the fear of the Almighty” (Job 6:14). It is the same word that is used to tell us that after Job prayed for his “friends” (the individuals who had been haranguing him), God forgave them (Job 42:10).
So if righteous Job prayed for the “friends” who mistreated him, and Christ could even call Judas “friend” as he betrayed him, can we learn a lesson from this? When we pray for our enemies (Matthew 5:44), do we pray grudgingly, with reservations, or do we pray for them as we would for a friend?
Recent Comments