I am a BS. I was asked by my church to take a bible study about 9 mos after Dday. This was it in it's entirety. I hope maybe it can be of help to somebody. God bless MrBC
INTRO
One of the great paradoxes of the Christian faith seems to be the believers views or perhaps I should say actions on forgiveness. Forgiveness is a central feature of Christianity and each elect believer embraces that great and comforting doctrine that God has covered their sins and forgiven them, so why is it, that people who have been forgiven so much, often find it so difficult and are often so reluctant to forgive others, just a fraction of what they themselves have been forgiven. The problem seems to arise when Christians are in a situation where it is necessary to extend forgiveness to someone else. The thinking seems to be "that forgiveness is a lovely idea until I have something to forgive".
Well tonight, I want us to look at forgiveness – God's way. We shall do this by way of 3 points;
1 When forgiveness becomes necessary – the breach
2 Forgiveness
3 Beyond forgiveness – reconciliation
THE BREACH – Acts 15; 36 – 41
Every time I read that passage I almost expect a different outcome, how could two such godly men have such a terrible falling out? How could 2 pillars of the church be unable to reconcile their differences?
Well in one sense, the answer to that is easy, as Jeremiah says; "the heart of man is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, who can know it?" We struggle daily with our indwelling sin, we have a natural propensity to do wrong, and we are inclined to evil, as it has been termed, "we all have rats in the cellar". When we look at our hearts we may think we are quite good people, but if we delve a bit deeper, in to the recesses we will find that rebellion against God is there. Now the indwelling sin, added to the attacks of the Evil One will mean that we are always liable to either give offence or take offence, leading to a breach.
This was a situation that could and should have been resolved, but Paul and Barnabus are a sobering example of how good Christian people can fall out. The idea was a good one to have a young man who could give them much needed support and could be groomed for future ministry, but the choice of young man lead to a sharp division. Paul and Barnabus both desired the good of the church, they both thought they were doing the right thing, but their conclusions lead them to disagree. But isn't this exactly how so many breaches occur between Christians? The disappointment here is not so much that a breach took place, but more that there was no immediate resolution.
Such godly men and yet we see a contention so sharp that they had to separate. What happened? Let us briefly look.
John Mark's fault.
There was the original fault of John Mark; he had let everybody down, by departing from a previous expedition, possibly in a clandestine manner (Acts 13:13) Here we can only conjecture, had John Mark confessed his original wrongdoing to Paul and sought forgiveness, or had he left undone what was needed to placate Paul?
Barnabus's fault.
Barnabus was understandably supportive of his nephew, but maybe he allowed partiality to cloud his judgement, a prime example perhaps of blood being thicker than water. His closeness to John Mark possibly affected his judgement. It was hard for him to be objective about one so close.
Paul's fault
Paul had been let down by John Mark and here is shown as not being willing at this stage to give the young man a second chance. Did he not believe in the God of the second chance? Could he not extend mercy to John Mark as mercy had been extended to him?
Again we wonder if John Mark had asked forgiveness for his former failing. If he had, then surely Paul would have been obligated to extend forgiveness and give that second chance to John Mark.
Joint fault (Paul and Barnabus)
Their tempers became so hot; their stubbornness was such that the matter was left unresolved. Why did they not seek a mediator? Why was the biblical example not followed, to call in a third person? Isn't this a situation where the natural man triumphed over the spiritual, where being "right" seemed more important than being "friends". Many will throw away friendships because of their insistence that they are right and the other wrong. Happily in this case, it appears that eventually there was reconciliation as we read of Paul commending John Mark at a later date, but sad that the breach occurred in the first instance.
FORGIVENESS – Jeremiah 31:34
So a breach has arisen between two believers, how should you react? Will we just trot out the usual trite sayings like; "once bitten, twice shy", or "now I know what they are really like", or even in a very judgemental way question their Christian experience – "how could a Christian act like that?" All too often, this is the easy way out. I remember hearing once after there had been a split in a church, where a significant number of members had left, that aspersions had been cast on these members very salvation!
Once we have been wronged we are at our most dangerous and possibly most sinful – our self-love and self-protection kicks in and we ask ourselves; "how could anybody treat me like that, what have I done to deserve this?" and so forth. When we feel we have been wronged, we usually see how much we love ourselves; we tend naturally to build up a wall of self-pity, instead of a bridge of reconciliation. We dwell on feeling sorry for ourselves, but we need to cut through the self-pity and find a solution God's way.
As Christians, we want to do better than the world. We know that society knows little of forgiveness and much about unresolved conflicts. The high divorce rate is just one example of unresolved conflicts, a breach takes place, for whatever reason and because there is no true forgiveness there is no reconciliation and the breach is never healed and so another family breaks up.
Surely one of the major reasons that there is so much unhappiness in the world today is due to a lack of forgiveness, a harbouring of resentment against others, sadly this can follow through into the church, and this is why Paul saw it necessary to warn against that in Ephesians 4:31, 32.
That is why Paul is saying we cannot afford to let bitterness or resentment continue a moment longer, we should act immediately – matt 6: 14-15, mark 11:25 show that there is a matter of some urgency, we shouldn't even be praying if we can't forgive another.
Unlearning
We need to model our forgiveness on god's forgiveness as in Ephesians 4:32, "forgiving each other, just as Christ God forgave you" Before we look at God's forgiveness model, we need to rid ourselves of some of the misconceptions concerning forgiveness, some of the unbiblical data that has been all too readily accepted and processed into our minds.
Apologizing is not forgiveness.
Apologizing seems to be accepted as the world's substitute for forgiveness. However, biblically it is a non-starter, there is no biblical reference to it and it does not do the same as forgiveness does. As many of you will know, an "apology" originally was a defence and in older writings you will often see an "apology" of a certain theological position. So at it's roots an apology is diametrically opposed to biblical forgiveness, which begins with confession and not defence.
You might say, well what about when the apology takes the form of one saying they are sorry. Well, I am not discounting the motives behind such a word, but literally when you say you are sorry, all you have done is expressed how YOU feel. The person receiving "the sorry" is only really being asked to acknowledge your feelings. Again, very different to one coming to you, acknowledging sin against you and seeking your forgiveness, so that the matter can be buried once and for all.
True Forgiveness
True biblical forgiveness of others is based on God's forgiveness of sinners. Our Father extends forgiveness to sinners, once realisation of their sin is known, once confession of sin is made, and once repentance has taken place. When the offender has done these things, then God shows mercy and freely forgives, so God's forgiveness is conditional, but it is also final. Once we have confessed a sin, we do not need to keep confessing it, keep asking for forgiveness, no matter how big or dreadful that sin was, because of God's promise to us, to remember no more, the transgression has been dealt with. God has not forgotten it as some erroneously teach, for forgetting is an omission or negative or failing on God's part, but rather God in His goodness chooses to remember the matter no more, it is a positive action on God's part and it teaches us how to forgive one another.
In practice
What does this mean in practice? It means that, forgiveness is not just a feeling or an emotion, it is a promise. When God says He forgives us, He doesn't renege on that. When God cancelled our sin, when he removed our debt, when He justified us, it was for all time, so that the saints would persevere until the end. The forgiveness is final and it is a promise to not raise the matter of past sins confessed again.
So when we forgive in a truly God – like fashion, we promise to not raise the matter again, as Spurgeon said; "when you bury a mad dog, don't leave his tail above the ground." This "remembering no more" concerns 3 things:
1. I will not bring the matter up to the offender. So you do not always have a trump card that you can play against the one who has wronged you at a key moment, you do not hold some kind of emotional blackmail over them that you can call in at any time. Rather you are equals again.
2. I will not bring the matter up to another. This aspect of "remembering no more" prevents idle gossip, which is so roundly condemned in scripture. I heard someone only last week relate to me, how they had forgiven someone for wronging them 6 years ago, but she may have kept the promise not to raise the matter with the perceived offender, but sadly she was still raising it with others.
3. I will not bring the matter up to myself. This can help prevent self-righteousness, self-pity and selfishness generally. To dwell on a wrong done to you is unhelpful and unbiblical. The self-righteousness will lead to pride and the self-pity could lead to melancholy and even depression.
When you have done this, when you have promised to not raise the matter with yourself, with others and with the offender, then you have buried the offence, remembered the sin no more and forgiven like God, as Henry Ward Beecher once said "Every man should have a fair sized cemetery in which to bury the faults of his friends"
Do you remember your worst sin, well, if you have sought forgiveness, then that has been buried in the deepest sea, it has been removed as far as the east is from the west. That is God's forgiveness, total and true, and yet as Christians, we often go on about "wounds that won't heal", or maybe the "wounds do heal, but they leave scars" etc. It's like we feel we have to cling on to a bit of hurt or a morsel of bitterness. How many times do we hear; "Oh the friendship was never the same again"? If it wasn't, then it's probably because the person saying that has not properly forgiven in a God-like way.
RECONCILIATION – John 21:15-17
When a breach takes place, it is like a garden has been wrecked, the forgiveness clears away the mess, removes the problem. Forgiveness is essential, but it is only half the story, forgiveness is the weeding, removing the rubble, but what about after the weeding?
Reconciliation is the re-planting, that leads to something beautiful again. Forgive and forget is a fallacy, but that is what many want to do, they want to say they forgive someone then get as much distance between them as is possible, either literally or mentally or emotionally, but again it is a far cry from biblical forgiveness, which desires to cover the sin, BUT then to reaffirm love for the offender. So forgiveness removes the bar which has separated two people, but that is not enough. At this stage the bond has not been re-established and that is where reconciliation comes in, to complete the process and to confirm that true forgiveness has taken place, for to "not raise the matter" see Jeremiah 31:34 with someone you never see is really proving nothing. If you distance yourself from someone after forgiveness has taken place, then it puts a question mark over the original forgiveness. Have you forgiven to such an extent that you are willing to build up a new and better relationship?
Reconciliation is surely one of the most beautiful words in the Bible, because it is a re-affirmation of love, despite wrongs done. It is an act of great mercy and undeserved love, with no self – seeking involved. It is done out of a great love for another see 2 Cor 2:7-8 9; "You ought to forgive and comfort him, so that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. I urge you therefore to reaffirm your love for him."
If we don't put the hard work in to completely reconcile, then the forgiving we did could be wasted. How different it was for Peter, Our Lord dealt with the situation thoroughly, completely and finally. He also dealt with it sympathetically and yet never ducking out of the issues that had been raised, so 3 times, Peter was asked the searching question whether he loved Christ, to match the 3 times he denied him. Christ also asked if Peter loved him more than the others, a reference to his proud claim, that if all others forsake you, I will not, here Christ is pointing out clearly to Peter his weaknesses. We can only assume that Peter learnt from his fall and recovery many, many lessons, not least the one of humility.
Jesus is of course our great example in all areas of life and He deals with Peter's restoration, like a skilled physician. He does not let Peter off the hook, he does not gloss over his failings, but nor does he crush him with the full weight of guilt he deserved, but rather, He pricks his conscience, so much so, that we are told that "Peter was grieved to be asked a third time". Surely reconciliation can be painful for the offender, for sin has to be dealt with, but like a bone being put back in to place, it is necessary for a right relationship, but if painful for Peter , how much more painful for Christ who had suffered the denial?
Did Christ forever hold Peter's denial against him? No, rather Jesus confirms the reconciliation by commissioning Peter to "feed the sheep", to return to spiritual duties. Once reconciliation has taken place, then "normal service should be resumed" and the promise of remembering no more should be adhered to both literally and in spirit.
CONCLUSION
So we have looked at the reasons why forgiveness is needed, what true forgiveness is like and the essential nature of reconciliation. These things give us much hope, but it would be remiss of me not to mention continuing consequences; for example when Lazarus was convicted of his sin, and then forgiven them, he didn't just glibly say "thank you Lord" and leave it that, but rather, he put right the wrongs that he had committed and those he had stolen from he paid back by way of restitution, so the offender doesn't have "a get out of jail free" card, but he does have that confidence that he will be treated as an equal again, certainly in God's eyes and hopefully in the eyes of the believer, who desires to obey God in all matters
Somebody once said, "forgiveness was for the strong and not the weak". How true this is, surely forgiveness is a spiritual response. The natural man seeks revenge the natural man wants his "pound of flesh". CS Lewis recounts a story from his childhood when he says, "Once when my brother and I, as very small boys, were drawing pictures at the same table, I jerked his elbow and caused him to make an irrelevant line across the middle of his work; the matter was amicably settled by my allowing him to draw a line of equal length across mine."
Let us seek rather to be Christ like, let us put off the old man and put on the new, let us return good for evil, let us be numbered amongst the peacemakers. Let us "remember no more" the sins done against us, let us reconcile with those who offend us and reaffirm our love to all of God's people.
