Thankyou for this. We were struggling with this issue in my bible study the other day.

It just seems so strange to not forgive if the offender doesn’t repent. But I guess God only forgives us if we ask him to - otherwise we are still in our sin.

Alex Greaves

http://solapanel.org/article/forgiveness_and_repentance_part_2/#5048

and Craig Schwarze
http://solapanel.org/article/forgiveness_and_repentance_part_4/#5120

have both gently requested that I interact with Luke 17:3-4 as it seems to be a fairly obvious repudiation of my position.

This will be four or five comments long.  I toyed with making it two posts, but on reflection think this is better suited to the comment thread.  So the compromise is that I’m placing it here, in the ‘smallest’ currently active comment thread.  So, Alex and Craig, and others with an interest, here’s my take on Luke 17:3-4

Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.”

There is no question in my mind that this passage is an argument against the view I’m raising.  Obviously I don’t think it is decisive, but I can understand why someone thinks this passage, all on its own, settles the whole question.  Clearly I disagree, but to explain why is going to take a bunch of words.  I’ll start by raising some general principles about how we read the Bible that I think are relevant to the question.  Then we’ll look at Luke 17:3-4 in particular.

The first issue is that there are two principles of how to read the Bible that are relevant for this discussion:

1. Read the passage in its natural sense.

2. Don’t read one passage in such a way as to be in conflict with other parts of Scripture.

These two principles are, at times, in tension from our standpoint as readers. 

Reading the passage in its natural sense means trying to understand it on its own terms – looking at context, genre, the original audience and the like. 

Seeking harmony across the Bible means not ending up with contradictions between the passage in question and the rest of the Bible. 

And so, sometimes the two principles can be in tension.  I might think, “Yes that’s the more natural reading, but it makes nonsense of the teaching of the rest of the Bible.” 

When that occurs I have three choices:

1. Run with what I think the teaching of the Bible as a whole is, and recognise that God hasn’t given me understanding of this part yet.

2. Decide that this part is so clear that I have misunderstood the teaching of the rest of the Bible and so begin to try and reinterpret other passages.  So I’m confident about one bit, and find everything else contradictory/unclear.

3. Run with what I think the teaching of the Bible as a whole is, and accept a reading of the passage that I think can be justified, but isn’t the most natural reading of the passage (the reading seems a little bit ‘strained’).

There aren’t any ‘rules’ you can appeal to, to decide between the three options.  All three need to be on the table.  As a very general tendency, people with a preference for biblical studies tend to find strategy 2 attractive, while people with a preference for theology tend to prefer strategy 1 and 3.  But all three approaches should be live options, all the time recognising that the problem is not with the Bible, but with our limited wisdom and understanding.  And so approaching the issue with humility, not confidence in our ability to puzzle out a mystery.

What I’m attempting here is an exercise in option 3: I’m going to try and show why my reading of Luke 17 is a bit strained compared to the ‘repentance necessary for forgiveness’ approach, but isn’t fatally so.  Most of us wouldn’t naturally get this reading just from Luke 17, but I think you do when Luke is placed in the Bible as a whole.

The third issue, which connects closely with the second, is that God is speaking to sinners who find it hard to be godly, not to good people who just need information and then they can take it from there.

I think this point really hasn’t taken hold of our culture of Bible reading the way it needs to – I learned almost everything on this by reading Calvin.  Calvin regularly argues that the Bible is not concerned to give us “The Truth” in some abstract, perfect, ‘how God sees it’ kind of way.  Scripture is concerned to give us the truth in a way that is suited for us – a way that edifies, a way that promotes the knowledge of God, and faith and repentance. 

Sometimes that means that God doesn’t give high-falutin precise definitions that are really only of interest to a specialist in that field of knowledge.  So in section 6 of chapter 15 of Book 1 of the Institutes Calvin accepts that some of the Greek philosophers were quite right with their complex analysis of how the human soul and mind functions.  Nonetheless the Bible offers something simpler that would be of use to all Christians – not just those with a penchant for philosophical and scientific analysis:

  For the edification of the pious, a simple definition will be sufficient. I admit, indeed, that what they ingeniously teach on the subject is true, and not only pleasant, but also useful to be known; nor do I forbid any who are inclined to prosecute the study.

He similarly seems to acknowledge in his commentary on Genesis chapter one that some of the Bible’s astronomical statements (such as there being an expanse above the earth that keeps the water away from us) aren’t in line with what common sense tells us but doesn’t see that as a problem.:

Moses describes the special use of this expanse, to divide the waters from the waters from which word arises a great difficulty. For it appears opposed to common sense, and quite incredible, that there should be waters above the heaven. Hence some resort to allegory, and philosophize concerning angels; but quite beside the purpose. For, to my mind, this is a certain principle, that nothing is here treated of but the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. Here the Spirit of God would teach all men without exception; and therefore what Gregory declares falsely and in vain respecting statues and pictures is truly applicable to the history of the creation, namely, that it is the book of the unlearned. The things, therefore, which he relates, serve as the garniture of that theater which he places before our eyes. Whence I conclude, that the waters here meant are such as the rude and unlearned may perceive. The assertion of some, that they embrace by faith what they have read concerning the waters above the heavens, notwithstanding their ignorance respecting them, is not in accordance with the design of Moses.

The Bible describes the heavens for the purposes of piety, for, in Calvin’s words, ‘the unlearned’, not for someone skilled in the science.  It describes the cosmos in a way that points to how we should trust, fear, and love God, not so much to describe accurately or precisely all the details of astronomy.  It just works with how it looks to the uneducated man on the street in the ancient world.  Not precision and accuracy for the clever and learned, but usefulness for the very least of Christ’s brothers is the basic principle for how the Bible speaks to us. 

Sometimes this focus the Bible has means that God uses language in ways that cause problems if they are read as simple truth statements: “if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off”.  That’s not precise information for good people wanting to know how to deal with their sin problem.  That’s a shot across the bow of people who are desperately evil and don’t realise that they have a serious and fatal sin problem. 

And much of the Bible is like that – it’s true, but not in our scientific way that prizes accuracy and precision and sees truth as just passive facts waiting for us to make use of them.  Scripture is not primarily information on a page waiting for us to make us of it. It is preaching.  It is truth packaged and aimed at us to cause a result, to affect us, not simply enlighten us.  It is truth up close and personal, fighting hand to hand and liberating people locked up in darkness.  It often sacrifices some precision in the interest of its effect on the hearer.  It is not truth waiting for us to use it, but truth used by God to create a change in us.  It is a sword wielded by another, not a tool for us to use.  As the voice of God, it is our Lord, never our servant. 

All of these principles need to be kept in mind when approaching Luke 17:3-4, I would suggest, and we’ll turn there next.

5.  Luke 17:3-4 is likely less conditional than it looks.  That is certainly implied by verse 4:

and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him

In this verse, the offender isn’t said to ‘repent’, as he is in verse 3.  He’s merely said to turn to you saying, “I repent”.  And, he does so seven times in a day.  What sort of repentance is this, that he offends and claims to repent seven times in one day?  It is pretty darn useless repentance.  About the only difference between this repentance and a lack of repentance is you get to see the guy’s lips move on seven different occasions.  In verse 4 Jesus is entirely silent about whether he has or has not repented, and that gives that verse a very different feel from verse 3.

So what looks like a strong fixed condition in verse 3 – rebuke, if he repents, forgive, is reduced, in verse 4 to ‘he offends you seven times, and comes to you seven times claiming that he repents’.  That is not ‘repentance as a condition’.  That is ‘making a claim to repent’ as a condition, at best.  The goalposts move from verse three to verse four.

Putting it all together I’d say:

Luke 17 is making a statement to people who find it hard to forgive (i.e. all of us) that takes account of our weakness in this area and works with it.  The kind of forgiveness being spoken of in verse 3 will look very similar to reconciliation.  The kind of forgiveness spoken of in verse 4 is going to look (especially once you get to the fourth or fifth time in the day of feeling like Charlie Brown with Lucy pulling the football away) a lot more like the kind of forgiveness that Jennie and I spoke about in our posts. 

So I read Luke 17:3-4 a bit like this:

If your brother sins, you should go and rebuke him and if he repents you really, really should forgive him.  It shouldn’t be a struggle, it should substantially reconcile you both.  That’s really just ‘basic’ to being Christ’s disciple. 

But let’s say he sins against you seven times in the one day, and each time comes and just says, ‘I repent’ – so that it’s not really clear whether or not he has or whether he’s just mouthing the words.  Then you still need to forgive him each time.  It’s going to be harder, the forgiveness won’t ‘do’ as much, but you still must forgive him each time.

What we have here are two ‘case studies’ from which we are to deduce a more general principle.  So let me offer the third case study not given in the passage and see how we should answer it given, not just verse 3, but verses 3 and 4 together: Say the offender doesn’t even say the words, “I repent”, do I still need to forgive him?  Is saying the words (when sinning against me seven times in a day suggests a certain hollowness to the words) the bare minimum criteria?  Or does the fact that other parts of Scripture record a similar teaching without the ‘and if he repents’ condition suggest that even if the words are omitted we should still forgive?  It’s just going to be even harder still, and will look even weaker and will fall even further short of its goal of reconciling you both.  (But seen correctly, it is no less gracious and glorious for all of that.)

It should be clear what my answer is.  The trajectory from verse 3 to verse 4 in Luke 17 already pushes you in a ‘forgive even when they don’t repent’ kind of direction.  By itself, that doesn’t require my reading.  But I think when the other issues I’ve raised are factored in, it means that verse 3 is not necessarily in opposition to what I’m advocating.  Jesus starts there with sinners who find forgiving really hard, but moves on to a different criteria in the very next verse.  According to vs4 those who disagree with me don’t really need to wait on actual repentance before they forgive and are reconciled, they just need to wait until the person claims to have repented and then they must reconcile – even it happens seven times a day.  I don’t see a huge difference between that and forgiving as best you can (and striving to do better) even without repentance, or without even the claim by the offender to have repented. 

Read in light of the rest of the Bible, Luke 17:3-4 is using a technique we should be aware of: God starts at a point where it hurts but we can swallow and say, “Yes Lord”.  Then he shows us that that is only the starting the point for how we need to approach forgiving others, and the demands he makes cut far more deeply into us.  And at that point, we copy the Twelve if we’re wise, and call out, “Lord increase our faith”.  And then go and do everything he commands of us, recognising that in doing so, we do nothing more than we should.

Hi Craig,

A rest now mightn’t be a bad idea - you’ve done some really heavy lifting in talking through things like this, and people who have followed the discussion will be in your debt for being the guy doing the work.

If you do nail further what is eluding you on the issue of the nature of forgiveness, then I think you’d have something quite special to offer - either on SA website or elsewhere.  I’d be keen to read it, certainly.

Since we’re exchanging compliments at the end of a conversation, then I’ll ‘fess up that I was quite thrilled when you started to comment. 

You’ve always struck me as generally displaying the characteristics we need for good theological discussion that genuinely edifies:

1. Neither lazy or sentimental about issues nor a prima-donna about your own views, but prepared to think hard and able to think well.

2. Genuinely concerned with life as it lived in this world, not in some abstract world.  You’re a realist, not an idealist.

3. Profoundly submissive to the word of God.  You’re committed to the knowledge of God being in the driving seat, you’re not a pragmatist.

I think your internet presence generally displays those qualities and I think in doing so sets up a great example of what we’re all trying to be. 

As I think you were all of these (and more, but these stand out) in this conversation, it was a great privilege to chew over something so important with you.  Thanks for you efforts.