But What About the Unforgiving Servant?
In the last two parts to this paper, I addressed the unfortunate event when pastors or other Christian counselors will try to shut down credible accusations against someone else in the church by asking the concerned party, whether they are also sinners. I attempted to prove while it is obvious that they are so, at the same time, this question is but a tactic to try to shut down “trouble.” And while it is technically true that all men are sinners, the Bible itself makes distinctions between different sins and those who commit them so as to allow concerned parties to be free to pursue sin issues in their churches since they are not necessarily in the same boat as those whom they accuse. I further went on to talk about the Bible’s appeal and promised reward for those who are willing to seek the repentance and restoration of their wayward brethren, showed that the practice of church discipline is a must and addressed the meaning of specks and logs from Matthew 7:1–5.
I decided to dedicate one part of this paper to just one passage because of how commonly misused it it.Matthew 18:21–35 — THE RULES FOR FORGIVENESS
In short, the ideas apparently espoused in this passage are the very ones that have been co-opted for the entire discussion, “How can you, who has been forgiven so much, demand such a high standard from a fellow-servant?” But, I would like also to note that Matthew 18:21–35 can be a hard passage to deal with at least in part because our church culture has so often misused and misapplied it. It’s like we’ve so often heard it applied this way that we subconsciously think it must mean that (or at least we’re afraid that that interpretation is right). So let’s look at it to see how truly to apply this Scripture.
A CONFLATION
Before discussing this passage in its finer details, I’d like to consider two preliminary points. The first is that thousands of Christians conflate forgiveness and amicability. The problem, of course, is that these two things are not identical to each other. Often times, forgiveness results in the ability for two parties to be friends again, but sometimes, someone who has forgiven another maintains a distance between himself and the offender. And what is important to understand is that this distance is not necessarily motivated by sinful malice, but by a distrust which is born out of experience — out of wisdom. We hear this example a lot: A wife’s husband has been unfaithful or abusive, she separates from him, goes to her pastor for help and she is told, “you need to forgive him.” What the pastor is doing is conflating forgiveness with amicability. While he said, “You need to forgive” what he actually means is, “You need to be friends with him” and those things simply are not the same thing.
IT’S ABSURD
Second, consider an argument to the absurd. This is a style of argumentation which aims to play out a claim to its logical conclusion(s), and sometimes those conclusions are so absurd that it is obvious that there is weakness in the original claim. And if we take the common application of this passage and play it out to its logical conclusion, we will find that this application is absurd. What I mean is many will turn to Matthew 18:21ff. even in the most horrific of circumstances and say, “Well, you really need to just forgive him/her.” But the weakness of this argument is that even the strongest proponents of this theology of “forgiveness-at-all-costs” themselves do not believe that this passage means we ought to literally pass over every sin. What about the money-launderer? What about the mobbster? What about the genocidist? We’re sinners too just like they are, should we just “forgive” and move on? It’s absurd! Therefore, the passage can’t mean that. The rest of the Scriptures bears this out by because there are systems in place for solving sin-issues in the church (Mt 18; 1 Cor 5; etc.). These systems would be meaningless if Mt 18:21–35 meant “forgive and forget” in its absolute sense.
TWO OBSERVATIONS
So if that’s what the passage does not mean, what does the Scripture say? Well, let’s review the story. Peter asks,
“Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?” Jesus saith unto him, “I say not unto thee until seven times, but until seventy times seven. Therefore the Kingdom of heaven is likened unto a certain king…” (Mt 18:21–23)
This king brings his servants to account, one of whom owed a fantastic sum, ten-thousand talents — equivalent to millions of dollars — and he forgives him freely. Upon being loosed from his own obligation, this forgiven servant then made his way to his own debtor and forced him with throat in hand, to pay what he owed. When the king heard of his graceless act, he promptly punished the unforgiving servant, “So likewise, shall My heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts do not everyone forgive his brother their trespasses” (Mt 18:35).
Here are a few observations that we need to consider in applying this passage to sin-issues in the church today. First, Peter’s question concerns sins of a personal nature, “Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him?” (v. 21, emphasis added). What we can say about this observation is that while this parable certainly holds application for forgiving sin generally, there is a very definite focus on personal grievances. This means that church leaders should be slow to turn to passages like this as the governing pattern in how to handle cases which are impersonal. For example, if a third party comes to the church with concerns in hearing how Mrs. Smith regularly withholds food from her children, a pastor’s use of Mt 18:35 would be inappropriate since the plaintiff is not even involved except that he/she is witness to the wrong done. Or, if someone brings questions about certain doctrinal positions, Matthew 18:35 hardly applies.
Second, when the first servant is choking his fellow servant, the texts holds something of a key “‘Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.’ And he would not…” (vv. 29–30, emphasis added). The AV’s translation at this point is good but old-fashioned and so hides the meaning from our modern ears. The NASB is helpful where we read, “but he was unwilling…” The Greek word translated “would not” in the KJV and “unwilling” in the NASB is a word of volition (thelo, θέλω) which expresses that the servant did not will to, wish to or want to forgive. This is a striking observation for it reveals that the heart of the matter was the servant’s heart. He did not wish to exercise compassion and that heart bore fruit in un-forgiveness. So says the king when he condemns his servant for a lack of compassion (v. 33).
This is important because in order to apply the parable correctly, we need to compare the hearts of those involved in sin issues in the church today with this key. In many cases, the offended party(ies) are in fact, very willing to forgive. They would like nothing more than to be able to forgive and move on. For example, we often hear stories of abused women who welcome back their abusive husbands repeatedly. How could that be except that they are so very willing (even too willing) to take him back. Further, although I can’t prove it with numbers, I’d suggest that even many of those who are now hardened to forgiveness were not always that way. They have been so hurt by someone that (either by the drastic nature of their trauma or through multiple experiences of repeated, brutal treatment) forgiveness now seems but a distant possibility. And in these cases, the last thing the offended person needs is a gauntlet-beating on their need to forgive and threats of condemnation if they don’t. Persons who are hurt like this need love and help and time. One day, that person may be willing to forgive, but right now, they need to be safe from harm and time to heal. The good Shepherd knows that.
A Word From Calvin
John Calvin is helpful as a commentator on this passage because he pauses to consider how practically to apply it in real life. First, he notes point-blank that, “Christ does not order us to grant forgiveness, till the offender turn to us and give evidence of repentance” This is grounded in the fact that Luke’s parallel to v. 21 (Lk 17:4) adds the phrase, “and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, ‘I repent;’ thou shalt forgive him.” (see Calvin, Commentary on Mt. 18:21–35; Luke 17:4). This means that even men of the scholastic heights of Calvin knew that a desire for sufficient evidence of repentance is nothing but common sense when it comes to forgiveness. Second, Calvin says that in this passage,
Christ does not deprive believers of the exercise of judgment, so as to yield a foolish readiness of belief to every slight expression [of repentance]… [but they should give mercy] provided there be evidence that they [the offender] are sincerely dissatisfied with their sins (ibid).
What this means is that when the offender has apparently repented, those to whom he has apologized are not required to suspend their brains, because the fact is, the person who just apologized might be lying. And so third, Calvin notes that the perpetrator is not absolutely freed from suspicion, but care should be exercised lest our kindnesses be mocked by him.
AND OLD TESTAMENT EXAMPLE
Now there is an interesting biblical example of this topic. In 1 Samuel 24, we read of the event where David cut off the corner of Saul’s robe in the cave, and later called out to him asking him why he hated him so much. Truly, the relationship between David and Saul is almost typical for abuse relationships throughout history. At any rate, after David calls out to Saul, Saul is struck in his heart and it even says he breaks down weeping (presumably in conviction) (v. 16) and he begins a confession to David. He confesses that David has been more righteous than him and says he’s thankful that he was willing to spare his life. He even acknowledges that David is going to be the king after him and just asks that David wouldn’t eradicate his family upon ascending the throne (vv. 17–21). So David promises that he wouldn’t destroy his family, “And Saul went home; but David and his men gat them up unto the [strong]hold” (v. 22). That last phrase is one I want to point out. Saul had just said something of a confession which David was acknowledged, but he did not then go back to Jerusalem or join ranks with Saul again. Why? Because David knew that forgiveness doesn’t mean that one has to act like they’re jolly friends again and pretend like everything is ok. What this incident teaches us is that it not ungodly to be suspicious of suspicious people. It is not un-Christlike to disbelieve liars. It is not unholy to distrust the untrustworthy. Forgive the perpetrator, by all means. Keep a soft heart before the Lord, willing and wishing to receive back those who have offended you but the patterns of past repentances and the evidences of present repentances should determine how you interact with that man or woman afterward.
SO WHAT DO YOU DO?
This is where the rubber meets the road. Having laid out an argument for why all sin is not equal, that sin should be dealt with in the church and examining a few passages about the topic, what are we to do?
First, pastors, please be aware of falling into the trap of treating all sin equally. When someone has been brave enough to come to you and share about how someone is sinning against them or someone else, be slow to shut them up by flinging their own guilt into the mix. Doing so may succeed in provoking their consciences and getting them to stop pushing the issue, but it will not be an honest attack. Take the issue seriously and deal with the complaint as it stands on its own merits. If that requires seeking the accuser’s own part in the situation, that’s fine. It may be the case that he had a part to play, but it is not necessarily the case and don’t assume that it is. Also, from the pulpit, when you preach on hamartiology (the doctrine of sin), be careful in your distinctions and applications. You do not want accidentally to give ammunition to abusive and hardened members lurking in your pews in the midst of your righteous attempts to discomfort the comfortable. Please also, be willing to take on the sin-issues in your flocks. Don’t let fear of the congregation nor of the or time-commitment dissuade you from taking it on. Remember also, you aren’t equipped to be able to handle everything: call the authorities when necessary, and seek help from those who have tools you may not. Serve the Lord Christ with both of your shoulders bent to the work in His church whom He called to be holy and without blame before Him in love.
Secondly, laymen, be prepared and be involved. Do not leave this ministry of holiness to your pastors. According to the Bible, their job is to train you for ministry (Eph 4:12), not to do ministry for you. That means, you should be reading the Scriptures and be well-versed in theology. You’re a busy person, yes. Perhaps you’re a housewife or maybe a lawyer or a student so admittedly, you’re not going to be a professor of theology. But do what you can. Ask your pastor for a book that you can read for ten minutes a day (you’ll be surprised at how many books you can read in a year that way — I was), or for sermons and lectures you can chip away at in your commutes. Turn off your TV’s for longer and wait to listen to music until you give 15 minutes to something equipping. Take up the cause to be a member of the body who is not only willing, but also able to address issues of holiness in your local church. Don’t be a nag, don’t be the church cop, but be an able-bodied, Christ-loving, church-loving Christian. This call can be intimidating to some for fear of starting with incorrect conclusions or for fear of certain personalities, but take courage. When the ten tribes of Israel saw the alter of Ruben, Gad and Manasseh on the shore of the Jordan, they rose up in arms, ready to take even their own brethren to task for what was perceived to be a grave sin. But none was the worse and both were happier when it was revealed that the alter was a mere symbol and not a sin… but at least they were brave enough to bother with it (Josh 22:11ff.). And take courage, thou Paul the late-comer, for it mattered not that it was the mighty Peter who walked contrary to the Gospel, but that the Gospel was contradicted at all. You too can withstand him to the face whatever the name or title of your opponent (Gal 2:11–14).
CONCLUSION
In short, we must refuse to treat all sins the same nor shall we use our sloppy claims to sidestep the issues. May ours be churches who refuse to bind burdens heavy to bear, who will seek to judge with righteous judgment in the congregation of the saints, who will not be led by cultural quips and surface-level interpretations, but who will be led by the whole counsel of God, to pursue the holiness of the church, the protection of the innocent, and the glory of God in all.
Sources:
Calvin, J. (1845) Commentary on the Harmony of the Evangelists: Matthew, Mark and Luke. (Rev. W. Pringle, Trans.) Publisher Not Found. (Original work published cir. 1555)
