The Formula for Forgiveness

“Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors…” When Jesus gave us an example prayer, it did not include a request for unconditional forgiveness of sins. There was an important condition attached: the request was for forgiveness in proportion to the amount that the supplicant had forgiven others. This point was reinforced immediately after this example prayer:

Jesus said forgiveness is conditional! To obtain forgiveness requires giving forgiveness!

This leads to an immediate theonomical problem. Paul talks extensively on unconditional grace, notably in the book of Romans. Many Christians latch onto these words and build entire doctrines upon them. By latching onto Paul’s words, we can safely ignore Jesus’ statements above.

Ignore Jesus?? Should Christians do that?

On the surface it appears that Paul does contradict Jesus when he talks of unconditional grace. But have a care! Paul’s talk of grace is part of a long and complicated argument, originally presented in Greek to an audience whom he had met in person. Was Paul talking about grace from all sins? Or just those committed before baptism or reception of the gospel? Or was he making some other subtle point?

I have no definitive answer. I intend to look harder at the subject in a future essay, where I will explore the issue of the fate of non-Christians and the multiple afterlife fates mentioned in the New Testament. (There are more than two.) For now, I will note that Jesus’ words are plain while Paul’s are part of a long and convoluted argument. Further, keep in mind that Peter warned of the dangers of misinterpreting Paul’s epistles [2 Peter 3:15-17].

Many theologians argue that the grace Paul refers to was instigated when Jesus was crucified. Perhaps so, but still: Why would Jesus bother to describe a condition on divine forgiveness if that condition was due to be dropped in a few years? This does not make sense to me. If salvation is free and we are all under grace, why bother going to church? Why not go fishing instead? Why tithe? Why do any of the Christian mandates which aren’t fun? And what about entry into the Kingdom being like a “pearl of great price?” [Matthew 13:45]

Jesus said that one needs to enter the Kingdom as a child. A child can respond to a clearly stated mandate, but a child is likely to lose interest in a convoluted theological discourse. For this reason and others, I opt to focus my actions on that which is clearly stated and leave the rest for future pondering.

Forgiveness as Mercy

Throughout this article I treat forgiveness and mercy as virtually interchangeable. The dictionary definition of mercy includes both clemency and charity. Both are implied in the Lord’s Prayer. To see this, we need to think about the meaning of debts under the Law.

Well off Hebrews were expected to give zero interest loans to their neighbors in need [Deuteronomy 15:7-10]. However, this requirement was just a loan. If the neighbor did not pay it back, then he was to become a bondservant to his creditor until the year of release (every 7 years). To forgive a debt is to forgo either the repayment of the loan or this time of service. Forgiving a debt under this circumstance is the equivalent of the modern idea of charity. It is giving outright to those in need.

Forgiveness of debts also refers to clemency. Under the Law a thief was required to pay back double the amount stolen (or more for certain livestock). If the thief could not pay, then the thief became a bondservant just like any other debtor. In other words, to forgive a thief is to forgive a debtor. The only difference is that an ordinary debtor who borrows $1000 owes $1000 under the Law, while a thief who steals $1000 owes $2000.

So, when Jesus spoke of forgiving debts, he referred to both forgiving criminals and to giving money to the poor. These are both very liberal mandates.

So why is Christian fundamentalism so often associated with the Right?

Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next

Copyright 2006, Carl S. Milsted, Jr. All rights reserved.