My motivation to kick you might come from my own frustrations resulting from my own sin.
We do have to defend ourselves from people who will always cause us pain.
Of what value is Godās forgiveness if we have to apologize to everyone, anyway?
If one offends someone, then one must apologise..
I believe we should forgive 70x7 (and more)
Hardly anyone thinks they have ever done anything wrong, so it seems unlikely that anyone will ask for forgiveness even once.
I think youāre confusing the practical with the spiritual. We forgive from the heart. What measure is applied to the one who harmed us is a different issue.
1 Like
So Godās forgiveness means nothing?
So the measure applied to the one who harmed us isnāt related to whether or not we have forgiven that person?
Exactly right @Johann. Forgiveness does not equate to a mandate to continue in harmās way. You comprehensively made that point clear in your previous post, and your personal testimony solidifies it. Jesus āescaped out of their handsā on several occasions, the apostle Paul escaped from evil plots against him on several occasions too, and on others occasions he used the law and other means to avoid personal harm. This was done with impunity. Jesusās admonishment to āturn the other cheekā, to āwillingly go two miles with him who insists you go oneā, or to āoffer your cloak to someone who just stole your coatā are opportunities for testimony, instances of intentional and measured personal loss for the sake of The Gospel. They are not intended to be laws prohibiting self-preservation, and should never be taught as such. As far as I can tell, no one in this thread has ever suggested otherwise.
Bobās question was if one should continue to forgive someone who repeatedly kicks them in the shins. That has been answered. Bob did not ask if the one being kicked should passively just stand there and take it. Neither did he ask if forgiveness insists one accept the abuse. You made the connection between forgiveness and a remedial response by the offended party, it is a reasonable connection, and you have demonstrated clearly that prevention does not prohibit forgiveness. One can forgive, and still move out of harmās way; one can forgive and still take immediate legal and ethical preventative action.
And the LORD passed before him (Moses) and proclaimed,
āThe LORD, the LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the childrenās children to the third and the fourth generation.ā
**Exodus 34:6-7 **
Hereās a true example:
A mother was concerned about her daughterās relationship with her boyfriend, but repeated attempts to talk with her daughter failed. The boyfriend ended up murdering her, was tried in court and sentenced to jail.
The mother knew as a follower of Jesus that she needed to forgive the boyfriend, and she struggled with that for some time. It came down to this. She could live in bitterness and hate while grieving her daughter, or she could forgive and be free of that bitterness while grieving her daughter. She had to live with the consequences of what heād done. There was no choice in that, but how she would live in it was up to her.
After much time she came to the place of forgiveness and expressed that forgiveness to the jailed boyfriend. Her forgiveness had a profound impact on that man, and she was free from hating him. So yes, they are two separate things. To forgive doesnāt mean the other person is freed from the consequences of their action. It means you are freed from the turmoil their actions caused you.
1 Like
In full agreement with your post @KPuff and I believe @BobEstey question has been fully answered.
Exodus 34:7
That will by no means clear the guilty - This last clause is rather difficult; literally translated it signifies, in clearing he will not clear. But the Samaritan, reading ×× lo, to him, instead of the negative ×× lo, not, renders the clause thus: With whom the innocent shall be innocent; i.e., an innocent or holy person shall never be treated as if he were a transgressor, by this just and holy God. The Arabic version has it, He justifies and is not justified; and the Septuagint is nearly as our English text, ĪŗĪ±Ī¹ ĪæĻ
ĪŗĪ±ĪøĪ±ĻĪ¹ĪµĪ¹ ĻĪæĪ½ ĪµĪ½ĪæĻĪæĪ½, and he doth not purify the guilty. The Alexandrian copy of the Septuagint, edited by Dr. Grabe, has ĪŗĪ±Ī¹ ĻĪæĪ½ ĪµĪ½ĪæĻĪæĪ½ ĪŗĪ±ĪøĪ±ĻĪ¹ĻĪ¼ĻĶ
ĪæĻ
ĪŗĪ±ĪøĪ±ĻĪ¹ĪµĪ¹, and the guilty he will not cleanse with a purification-offering. The Coptic is to the same purpose. The Vulgate is a paraphrase: nullusque apud te per se innocens est, āand no person is innocent by or of himself before thee.ā This gives a sound theological sense, stating a great truth, That no man can make an atonement for his own sins, or purify his own heart; and that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
Clarke
And that will by no means clear the guilty. This translation, which intimates the divine vengeance on sinners, and is commonly regarded as an addition, to correct erroneous impressions of Godās unlimited goodness-to show, in short, that He is just and righteous, as well as benevelent and merciful-is quite inconsistent with the occasion as well as the object of this proclamation, which was, in answer to the solicitude and prayer of Moses for the people of Israel, to announce, His special kindness in dealing with that chosen nation. But the word āguilty,ā being in italics, is an improper supplement by our translators. Gesenius, who renders the words, ābut will by no means always leave unpunished,ā connects them with the preceding clause; so that the passage will stand thus: ākeeping mercy for thousands, but not always pardoning the guiltyā (Nah_1:3).
But others, preferring another meaning of the verb, given also by that lexicographer, to be vacant, empty, destroyed, render these words, in connection with the subsequent context, thus-`but I will not utterly empty or destroy, though visiting the iniquities,ā etc. This translation accords with Jer_25:29; Jer_30:11; Jer_46:28; Jer_49:12; Nah_1:3, where the same phrase, though rendered in our version, āI will not leave thee altogether unpunishedā - the best commentators prefer, as the parallelism requires, āI will not utterly destroy thee;ā and with Num_14:18, where Moses, taking up this phrase, which came from the mouth of God, urges it as a plea for the exercise of clemency, though it would have been singularly inapposite if the right sense had been that given in the English translation (see āIsrael after the Flesh,ā p. 19).
JFB.
āVisiting the iniquityā does not mean transferring guilt to innocent children. The Fathers, Reformers, and Puritans consistently read this as the continuation of sinās consequences where the same sins are continued.
This is confirmed elsewhere:
Ezekiel 18:20[1]
God is not contradicting Himself. He is describing how sin entrenches itself socially and spiritually when unrepented.
- The Unified Conclusion
They all agreed on this, without drama or hand-wringing:
God truly forgives sin
God never denies justice
Mercy is abundant and deliberate
Judgment is restrained and measured
Forgiveness does not mean moral clearance
Justice does not cancel compassion
Exodus 34:6ā7 is not a tension to be resolved. It is a portrait to be believed.
If anything, the passage exposes how allergic modern theology is to letting God be both kind and severe at the same time, even though Scripture never seems bothered by that combination at all.
God bless.
J.
āThe soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.ā - KJV ā©ļø
You are confusing our responsibility towards people with our need to respond to God.
If you sin against a friend you cannot just ask God for forgiveness, you need to do that but also apologise to your friend.
Turn this around.
A good friend backs his car into your car. But he tells you he has confessed his offence to God, so everything between you is fine.
Would it be fine? Wouldnāt you wnt his car insurance to pay for the repairs to your car?
I think forgiveness of sins means just that - forgiveness of sins. That doesnāt mean you might not want to apologize to your friend.
It is not a case of ā might want to apologise ā but a case of if one is repentant then one will first talk to the person you have sinned against and then talk to God about what one has done.
Godly repentance involves putting right, as far as it is possible, ones actions and then telling God about ones sorrow for sinning.
1 Like
I think when God forgives us of our sins, we are forgiven.
As 1John1:9 says God forgives and purifies us of all unrighteousness.
But Luke17:3 says If your brother or sister[a] sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them. 4 Even if they sin against you seven times in a day and seven times come back to you saying āI repent,ā you must forgive them.ā
As in the scenario of your car being hit.
There is a personal relationship in sinning as well as the vital spiritual relationship with God.