Forgiveness: Believers Forgiving One Another

By Paul R. Schmidtbleicher

Chafer Theological Seminary

Paul Schmidtbleicher earned a Th.B. from William Tyndale College and Th.M. from Dallas Theological Seminary. Paul pastors Evergreen Baptist Church in the state of Washington and is on the National Board of Advisors of Chafer Theological Seminary.

Introduction

Forgiveness is a broad term. The Scriptures present two major subdivisions: the forgiveness of God and the personal forgiveness between individuals. Although Scripture grounds the forgiveness of one another in the forgiveness of God, personal forgiveness is the emphasis of this study. There have been volumes written on and about the forgiveness of God. Unfortunately, writers have given us much less material about personal forgiveness between believers.

People’s thinking about forgiveness seems to settle into two extremes. The first extreme becomes a wide open forgiveness where forgiveness is an overlooking of sin and sinful behavior based upon stand-alone interpretations of passages like Matthew 18–21-22 and Colossians 3:13.

Then Peter came to Him and said, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?” Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven” (Matthew 18:21–22) 

Bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also must do (Colossians 3:13).

The other extreme becomes a half-hearted forgiveness where believers do speak to one another, but there is no restoration of trust, interchange, or commerce like what existed before the offense. This, I believe, people base upon a defective view of forgiveness in which the offending sin of the guilty person has not been fully addressed.

This study seeks to present a balanced view on forgiveness between believers.

God’s Forgiveness: A Foundation

God’s forgiveness of the believer’s sins is a marvelous provision of eternal salvation. A believer receives the forgiveness of God for all past sins at the point of salvation. Yet, it is much different for God. Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer has written:

Forgiveness on the part of one person toward another is the simplest of duties, whereas forgiveness on the part of God toward man proves the most complicated and costly of undertakings. As seen in the Bible, there is an analogy between forgiveness and debt and, in the forgiveness that God exercises, the debt must be paid—though it is paid by Himself—before forgiveness can be extended. Thus it is learned that while human forgiveness only remits a penalty or charge, divine forgiving must require complete satisfaction for the demands of God’s outraged holiness first of all. [1]

Although Dr. Chafer takes human forgiveness to be rather simple, he clearly presents the high cost of divine forgiveness. Payment or restitution for sin in the death of Christ was necessary. Furthermore, one receives divine forgiveness because of faith in Christ—”faith alone in Christ alone.” Some scriptures call upon man to repent:

Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord (Acts 3:19) 

[Paul declared]. .. throughout all the region of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance (Acts 26:20).

There are two free grace views regarding repentance. The first is that repentance is not a separate step in securing salvation and the forgiveness of sins, but a change of mind from unbelief to belief. Repent is the translation of the Greek word μετανοέω (metanoeo), which means “a change of mind.” Dr. Robert Lightner sees this use of repent in salvation not as a separate step, but as included in believing.

The word repentance means a change of mind. Because of the confusion, many make repentance a separate and additional condition of salvation. This is not true in the Word. There is no question about it: repentance is necessary for salvation. However, Scripture views repentance as included in believing and not as an additional and separate condition to faith. All who have trusted in Christ as Savior have changed their minds regarding Him and their sin. (Of course, it would be impossible to change one’s mind without trusting the Savior.) According to scriptural usage, repentance is almost synonymous for faith. Paul said he declared to both the Jews and the Greeks Repentance towards God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 20:21). [2]

A second free grace view expounded by Zane C. Hodges also does not see repentance as a separate condition to salvation, or as the other side of the same coin of faith as does Lightner. Hodges sees repentance as one of several ways God uses to prepare the sinner to accept the free gift of salvation. [3]

For the believer who sins after salvation, the Scripture makes it clear that the forgiveness of God is based upon a change of mind (repentance) that confesses agreement with God that the offense is sin.[To Simon the magician the apostle says] Repent therefore of this your wickedness, and pray God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you (Acts 8:22) 

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9)

Therefore, what is basic to God’s forgiveness of the unbeliever is the restitution made by Jesus Christ on the Cross (His Atonement) and for the unbeliever to change his mind about Christ. Where the believer is concerned, he must change his mind about personal acts of sin and confess them. In both cases, a basic change of mind as a part of belief or confession plays a part in receiving forgiveness of sins from God.

On the other hand, it is most important to realize that God’s forgiveness has never been an “overlooking” of sins and trespasses. God, as the ultimate victim of all sin, has received restitution in the death of Christ.

God bases His forgiveness or receipt of His pardon [4] upon the restitution for sins that Christ voluntarily made for the world. From the earliest mention of forgiveness, the Lord has never discounted nor overlooked our sins. He forgives us because Christ made restitution. Though God made the restitution for us, it was still required to obtain God’s forgiveness. To put it the opposite way: without the restitution payment of Jesus Christ, there would be no forgiveness!

The Forgiveness of God and the Forgiveness of Man

The Word divides the biblical teaching on forgiveness into two categories: (1) Religious forgiveness before God, and (2) Civil forgiveness before men. An example of religious forgiveness is Colossians 1:14; an example of civil forgiveness is Colossians 3:13.

In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins (Colossians 1:14). 

Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do you (Colossians 3:13).

Religious forgiveness involves maintaining the vertical relationship between the believer and the Lord. As seen in Colossians 1:14, it is gained at salvation through the restitution payment made by Christ’s death. It is maintained through the confession of sins by us and the cleansing of sins by God (1 John 1:9).

Civil forgiveness involves the maintaining of horizontal relationships between people—the real emphasis of this study. Some sins by their very nature involve other persons and are against people. These offenses offend them! When this is the case, religious forgiveness must include civil forgiveness. We must reestablish the horizontal relationship by, in part, maintaining our vertical relationship with the Lord. As shall be shown, an offender must seek civil forgiveness, once an offense has occurred, through a change of mind (i.e., metanoia or repentance) and restitution when required.

Forgiveness from the Viewpoint of the Offender

We will first consider the Offender because we hope that the reader who sins against another will not allow an offense to lay and fester. Rather, may he seek to take the correct biblical action to resolve the problem before both God and man.

The Victimless Offense

The victimless offense is actually a misnomer. God Himself is the victim of all our sin. Examples would be mental attitude sins or sins that never actually reach out to offend another person. However, all sin does offend God and He becomes the ultimate victim (Rom 3:23; 8:7).

All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). 

The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be (Romans 8:7).

Because God is victimized by our private and personal sins, we are to confess our sins to Him and gain His forgiveness (1 John 1:9). Our agreeing with God in confession involves seeing our sin and acknowledging it as He sees it. This brings God’s forgiveness. He does not overlook our sin nor simply excuse it, but applies the restitution payment paid by His Son on the Cross to forgive our sin (1 John 1:7). The result is that the Lord restores the vertical relationship. By definition (clarification will follow), sin offends no one but God. Therefore, confession before the Lord ends the matter.

Offenses against Victims

This type of offense is a sin against other persons. Somehow our sin affects them and we offend them, whether judicially or emotionally. We have “trespassed” against both God in our vertical relationship and against others with whom we share a horizontal relationship in this category of sin. Therefore, forgiveness must restore the horizontal relationship with persons sinned against and also the vertical relationship with God. Accordingly, we must seek both civil and religious forgiveness.

An Alternate View

At this point, some [5] propose that the believer needs only to confess an offense to God who then freely forgives, without any need to seek civil forgiveness or to resolve the offended horizontal relationship.

Some make the claim that the death of Christ brings forgiveness before God (religious) and before men (civil) without any further resolution or restitution between men. These proponents argue that for every sin and crime, one needs only to confess to God for total forgiveness. The victim is then required to forgive based solely upon the forgiveness that he has personally received in Christ. This view is proposed from faulty interpretations of the following two passages:

Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, just as God in Christ forgave you (Ephesians 4:32). 

Bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also must do (Colossians 3:13).

If we carry this view to its logical end, the victim must forgive and seek restoration with the perpetrator solely because of the forgiveness of Christ. Thus:

• The thief steals, confesses to God, who supposedly totally forgives him. Tough luck for the victim who has lost real property!
• The slanderer libels, devastates his target, and confesses to God, who supposedly totally forgives him. Tough luck again for the victim with a ruined reputation! As should be quickly surmised, this is not biblical.

The basic arguments against this view involve the fact that the death of Christ made payment or restitution for the sins of men before God, satisfying His victimization in all sin. Satisfying man’s victimization demands pursuing the issues of civil forgiveness that we have yet to present. The death of Christ satisfied (propitiated) God’s righteousness and justice so that men can receive God’s (religious) forgiveness and eternal life.

In addition, the death of Christ covered God’s required restitution as an included party in the sins of one man against another. However, sins against society and against one another require civil restitution for forgiveness before God and men. Thus:

• The thief steals, realizes his sin, and confesses to God and his victim, then makes restitution, and God forgives him. The divine requirement commands men to forgive the repentant offender. The death of Christ compensated God. The perpetrator compensates the victim by restitution.
• The slanderer libels and devastates his target, realizes his sin, confesses to God and the victim, makes restitution, and God forgives him. The Lord requires men to forgive the repentant man. The death of Christ compensates God. Restitution compensates the victim.

This is the overview of the basic principle that we must detail from Scripture. Those who hold that confession to God alone is all that is necessary for forgiveness remove the basis for criminal law. They also remove the basis of restitution to victims. Some holding this view include in their logic a faulty interpretation of David’s prayer of confession in Psalm 51 where he states, Against You, You only, have I sinned. [6] They see God as the only one to whom one must confess. In this way they avoid the command of James 5:16 to confess your faults to one another. To the contrary, we should interpret James 5 following the normative process of civil forgiveness where the confession of the offender’s sin to the offended party takes place. [7]

What an Offender does to Seek Forgiveness

Having outlined what an offender should do when he has sinned against another, the Scriptures are now set forth.

Since one of the proper uses of the Old Testament is for our example (1 Corinthians 10:11), the foundation for what an offender should do to seek forgiveness includes the examples of God’s Law. Leviticus 6 presents clear guidelines about the principles involved when one sins against God and another person.

And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: “If a person sins and commits a trespass against the Lord by lying to his neighbor about what was delivered to him for safekeeping, or about a pledge, or about a robbery, or if he has extorted from his neighbor, or if he has found what was lost and lies concerning it, and swears falsely—in any one of these things that a man may do in which he sins: then it shall be, because he has sinned and is guilty, that he shall restore what he has stolen, or the thing which he has extorted, or what was delivered to him for safekeeping, or the lost thing which he found, or all that about which he has sworn falsely. He shall restore its full value, add one-fifth more to it, and give it to whomever it belongs, on the day of his trespass offering. And he shall bring his trespass offering to the Lord, a ram without blemish from the flock, with your valuation, as a trespass offering, to the priest. So the priest shall make atonement for him before the Lord, and he shall be forgiven for any one of these things that he may have done in which he trespasses (Leviticus 6:1–7).

The situation involves a sin against the Lord that is also a sin against another person. There are victims involved. God is first set forth as the ultimate victim of all sin. This scenario also includes persons who are victims. The pattern for forgiveness set forth includes the offender seeking religious forgiveness with God to restore the vertical relationship through the required trespass offering. It also includes seeking civil forgiveness and restoring the horizontal relationship through a change of mind (metanoia), that is, repentance, confession, and restitution.

The offenses mentioned include lying, false swearing (6:2–3), lessor categories (any of these things, 6:3), to robbery (6:2) and extortion (6:2).

The requirement is that the offender who is guilty of the sin (a) come before the Lord (6:6), (b) acknowledge the sin by a mind changing repentance and confess it [8] (6:6–7), (c) make restitution (6:5), and then (d) receive final forgiveness from God (6:7).

The text does not view the offense as outright criminal activity. If it were, the restitution would be at least double according to Exodus 22:1–4, rather than here where restitution involved restoration plus an added payment of twenty percent (Leviticus 6:5). Under this formula, God granted forgiveness and so must the victim.

Forgiveness means “to discharge, dismiss, acquit, let loose from; to remit a debt or sin, to pardon.” [9] Forgiveness does not mean that the victim will forget the offense. Jay Adams explains further what is involved:

Forgiveness means no longer continuing to dwell on the sin that was forgiven. Forgiveness is the promise not to raise the issue again to the offender, to others or to himself. Brooding is a violation of the promise made in granting forgiveness. [10]

Furthermore, as one follows the principles of forgiveness, there is

the establishment of a new relationship between the offender and God and between the offender and the offended party (parties). .. enmity and alienation are replaced by peace and fellowship. [11]

The victim forgives the offender. They restore the estranged relationship and peace prevails. The grace of God not only forgives the former offender, but the guilty party takes the required action to seek to make restitution to the victim.

We should note that where tangible property is involved, the principle is straightforward as in the above example. However, in intangible areas where one has damaged another’s reputation, violated a confidence or trust, or the sin has driven a wedge between believers, the restitution may be an apology. Possibly, restitution could be requiring the offender to retrieve the maligning or gossip before all involved. In the latter case, this should be sufficient. In the former case, the offender can only make restitution by exhibiting fruits worthy of repentance (Matthew 3:8) over a period of time. On the other hand, the victim must forgive the offender before God and leave things in His hands while seeking reconciliation. [12]

A second Old Testament passage that addresses what an offender should do to obtain forgiveness occurs in Leviticus 5.

If a person commits a trespass, and sins unintentionally in regard to the holy things of the Lord, then he shall bring to the Lord as his trespass offering a ram without blemish from the flocks, with your valuation in shekels of silver according to the shekel of the sanctuary, as a trespass offering. And he shall make restitution for the harm that he has done in regard to the holy thing, and shall add one-fifth to it and give it to the priest. So the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering, and it shall be forgiven him (Leviticus 5:15–16).

At issue is unintentional sin against the “holy things” of the Lord. These “things” we may see as the properties of the Lord. When this happened, the Lord Himself required both the trespass offering to resolve the vertical estrangement that the sin had caused between himself and God and a restitution payment in restoring the “holy thing” plus twenty percent. The restoration and additional compensation resolved the horizontal estrangement of the offender from the priest who was the Lord’s personal representative in the matter.

Based upon (1) the confession of the sin, (2) the offering representing the atonement of Messiah to come, and (3) the restitution payment, one was to grant forgiveness with all the ramifications discussed above.

An Interesting Application

If a wrong that victimizes others included restitution, that is, a restoration of the “thing” plus twenty percent, then it would cause many to think twice before sinning against another believer. On the other end, for the victim, seeing restitution plus twenty percent would go a long way toward motivating one to forgive “seventy times seven.”

A believer who borrowed your car and returned it dented would do better to return it restored and add some credit for a few tanks of gasoline. He would have gone the extra mile (seen in the above examples) and you would have little trouble forgiving—really forgiving—and even letting him borrow the car again!

Jesus’ Teaching on Forgiveness for the Offender

One passage stands out in the Lord’s teaching on forgiveness according to the offender:

Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift (Matthew 5:23–24).

Here, Christ pictures the offender as attempting to worship and serve the Lord. However, there is a sin, an offense, that stands between himself and another. Because of the order of procedure, the logical assumption is to assume that the offense also stands between the offender and God. In other words, sin violated the vertical relationship as well as the horizontal relationship. The guilty party needs to seek both civil as well as religious forgiveness.

Bringing a gift to the altar assumes the desire by the offender to worship and enjoy reconciliation with the Lord. In terms of Romans 6:13, the offender has decided to yield his members as instruments of righteousness to God. He has acknowledged his sin to the Lord wanting the Lord’s forgiveness.

Yet, the Lord instructs the offender to first be reconciled to your brother and then come and offer your gift. The obvious conclusion is that as in the Old Testament example of Leviticus 6:1–7, one must seek civil forgiveness as a part of God’s religious forgiveness. Both the horizontal estrangement with the person offended he must address as well as the vertical estrangement (unresolved sin) with the Lord.

Biblical Examples of Offenders Seeking Forgiveness

Except for those seeking eternal forgiveness there are few examples of offenders seeking forgiveness. We shall set forth two examples in the Old Testament and two from the New Testament of an offender seeking forgiveness.

(1) Pharaoh: The first example is the Pharaoh of Egypt who when faced with the plague of locusts asked forgiveness of both the Lord and of Moses in Exodus 10. Because of Pharaoh’s refusal to let Israel go, God sent the locust plague. In the severity of the plague, Pharaoh quickly realized his trespass. He approached Moses for forgiveness.

Then Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron in haste, and said, “I have sinned against the Lord your God and against you. Now therefore, please forgive my sin only this once, and entreat the Lord your God, that He may take away from me this death only” (Exodus 10:16–17).

Pharaoh, as an unbeliever, recognized that the trespass was against both God and man. He confessed his sin to Moses asking for his forgiveness and for Moses to entreat God for His forgiveness.

It is obvious that the restitution offered to the Lord and Moses was a reconsideration of letting Israel leave Egypt. Moses and the Lord forgave, removing the plague. However, Pharaoh later refused the restitution and would become subject to more plagues.

So he went out from Pharaoh and entreated the Lord. And the Lord turned a very strong west wind, which took the locusts away and blew them into the Red Sea. There remained not one locust in all the territory of Egypt. But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he did not let the children of Israel go (Exodus 10:18–20).

(2) Abigail: The second example is a woman who sought to take the blame for the evil of her husband, Nabal, who had railed upon David. As David would angrily seek to take vengeance, Abigail came to David in the name of the offender, Nabal, asking forgiveness with gifts of restitution.

Then Abigail made haste and took two hundred loaves of bread, two skins of wine, five sheep already dressed, five seahs of roasted grain, one hundred clusters of raisins, and two hundred cakes of figs, and loaded them on donkeys (1 Samuel 25:18). 

And now this present which your maidservant has brought to my lord, let it be given to the young men who follow my lord. Please forgive the trespass of your maidservant. For the Lord will certainly make for my lord an enduring house, because my lord fights the battles of the Lord, and evil is not found in you throughout your days (1 Samuel 25:27–28).

Although the text says nothing of confession to the Lord, certainly the text addresses the estranged horizontal relationship with (1) confession, (2) seeking forgiveness, and (3) restitution.

(3) The Prodigal Son: The major New Testament example of forgiveness is that of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11–32). This familiar parable begins with the younger son obtaining and wasting his inheritance on “riotous living” (15:13) and on prostitutes (15:30). As he runs out of money and reaps the results of the terrible decisions he has made, he realizes he has sinned. He has a metanoia, or mind changing repentance, realizing that he has sinned against God and also against his father.

I will arise and go to my father, and will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you, and I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Make me like one of your hired servants (Luke 15:18–19).

The son realizes his sin has vertical (man to God) and also horizontal (man to man) consequences. We assume that at the moment of repentance he confessed his sins to God and determined to return to his father with the offer of a minimal restitution, returning to his father to become as a hired servant.

In this example, the father—a picture of our Heavenly Father—who was a victim in this offense, accepts the repentance, but refuses the restitution. He fully restores his son solely based upon the repentance and the offer of restitution he made.

And the son said to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight, and am no longer worthy to be called your son.” But the father said to his servants, “Bring out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet” (Luke 15:21–22).

(4) The Attitude of Zacchaeus: Another New Testament example is that of the attitude portrayed by Zacchaeus in Luke 19:1–10. As Jesus comes to Jericho, this short, rich tax collector climbed a tree to see the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus, seeing the desire and faith of Zacchaeus, chose to stay in his house. Zacchaeus was overjoyed though others criticized the Lord for being a guest in the house of a sinner.

Evidently, Zacchaeus heard the simple message of the gospel that is “faith alone in Christ alone.” His great joy in having fellowship with Jesus may very well speak of his salvation. As the complainers label Zacchaeus “a sinner,” Zacchaeus proposes what he would do to show forth the fruits of his salvation. [13]

Then Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord, I give half of my goods to the poor; and if I have taken anything from anyone by false accusation, I restore fourfold.” And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because he also is a son of Abraham” (Luke 19:8–9).

The attitude portrayed by Zacchaeus was that if he had been an offender in any of his tax collecting activities, he desired to seek forgiveness. He sought forgiveness based upon (1) seeing that he had made a “false accusation” [repentance], (2) acknowledging it [confession], and (3) seeking forgiveness with a fourfold restitution.

Conclusions for Offenders Seeking Forgiveness

In a victimless offense, God is still the victim of all sin and forgiveness. By confession, one needs to seek His forgiveness (1 John 1:9).

In an offense where one victimizes another, the offender must realize that both vertical estrangement with God and horizontal estrangement with the offended person has occurred. He must seek both religious and civil forgiveness. Scripture seems to precondition religious forgiveness upon seeking (even if not received) civil forgiveness (cp. Leviticus 6:1–7; Matthew 5:23–24).

The offender seeking forgiveness should confess the offense to all involved starting with God, then seek to make restitution with an added additional amount to the persons involved (cp. Leviticus 5:15–16; 6:1–7; 1 Samuel 25:27–28).

Forgiveness from the Viewpoint of the Victim

Most of the Scriptures that deal with the topic of forgiveness address it from the standpoint of a believer whom one has wronged or victimized. If the offender would follow the biblical guidelines and do what is right before the Lord, he would quickly remove estrangement, restoring peace and fellowship. However, because of continued sin, offenders often fail to do what is right until the Lord brings various pressures to bear.

Just as the offender’s sin has ramifications with God and the victim, the granting of forgiveness involves both God and the offender. A survey of New Testament passages that deal with person to person forgiveness reveals that the Word commands believers to be forgiving and to forgive. The remainder of this study will seek to glean some details.

Granting Religious Forgiveness: Forgiving an Offender Before God

Whenever we are the victims of an offense, whether small or large, our immediate step before God is to forgive the offender. Though the Lord did not cause our victimization—sin did!—God chooses to use it somehow in our lives. In keeping with the realization that in God’s all-encompassing plan, all things work together for good (Romans 8:28) and in everything give thanks (1 Thessalonians 5:18), we begin by granting forgiveness. In fact, God demands that we release the offender to Him by a prayer of forgiveness.

And whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him, that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses. But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father in heaven forgive your trespasses (Mark 11:25–26; cp. Romans 12:19).

As the victim of an offense, we can either react or turn it over to the Lord. The Lord commands us to forgive, releasing the offense and the offender to Him. The forgiveness spoken of here is before the Lord in prayer. In context, the Lord teaches on prayer. One aspect of being the victim of an offense is the immediate retaliatory sins [14] that pop into the mind—mental attitude sins—toward the offender. We must biblically handle these sins. The Lord commands us to forgive. This forgiveness involves releasing the offender, the offense, and our victimization into the hands of the Lord. We may further couple this idea with Romans 12:19.

Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord.

The offender and the offense we must release to the Lord for Him to handle. We must rely upon Him to “repay” out of His own plan for the offender and His vengeance. Our attitude before the Lord is to forgive and release the offense. In the words of Jay Adams, previously cited:

Forgiveness means no longer continuing to dwell on the sin that was forgiven. Forgiveness is the promise not to raise the issue again [here complaining to God], to others or to himself. Brooding is a violation of the promise made in granting forgiveness. [15]

In releasing the offense and the offender to God by this act of vertical forgiveness, or our granting religious forgiveness, the Lord can then forgive our sins. I take this as God’s forgiveness of our immediate or lingering reactionary sins toward the offense and the offender. We may say the same for similar contexts in which God bases His forgiveness of us upon our forgiving others (Matthew 6:12, 14–15; 18:35; Mark 11:25–26; Luke 6:37; 11:4)

Though the Lord links His temporal forgiveness of us to how we forgive others, He does not condition our eternal forgiveness upon being forgiving. Louis Barbieri has said:

Though God’s forgiveness of sin is not based on one’s forgiving others, a Christian’s forgiveness is based on realizing he has been forgiven (cf. Eph 4:32). Personal fellowship with God is in view in these verses (not salvation from sin). One cannot walk in fellowship with God if he refuses to forgive others. [16]

Therefore, to summarize, the first step in granting forgiveness is the granting of religious forgiveness before God by forgiving the offense and the offender through turning the whole matter over to the Lord for His action and vengeance.

One of the best examples of this happening was with David and Nabal in 1 Samuel 25. Nabal offended David. David reacted and sought to take revenge. Abigail, wife of Nabal, interceded for her husband and convinced David to turn the offense and the offender over to the Lord. Because Nabal continued unrepentant, the Lord finally struck Nabal dead in divine judgment. [17]

Religious forgiveness is often the only type of forgiveness that we can grant toward unbelievers. The victim forgives them before the Lord and leaves them in His hands as those whom God loves and for whom Christ died. We deal with unbelievers who victimize us with the same desire to see their salvation as we would deal with any other unbelievers at various levels of communication and commerce. [18]

Granting Civil Forgiveness: Personally Forgiving an Offender

The process of granting civil forgiveness comes next. The Lord commands us as believers to forgive one another as we have received the forgiveness of our sins in Christ.

Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, just as God in Christ forgave you (Ephesians 4:32). 

Bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also must do (Colossians 3:13).

The granting of civil forgiveness is not simply an overlooking of the sin of the offender, but is to follow a clearly laid out process that we find in both Matthew 18:15–17 and Luke 17:3–4. The account of Luke seems to summarize [19] best the process.

Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns to you, saying, ‘I repent,’ you shall forgive him (Luke 17:3–4).

Luke 17:3 sets forth the process of civil forgiveness in four steps: (1) the offense, (2) the rebuke, (3) the opportunity to repent, and (4) forgiveness (civil). Let’s examine each of these four steps.

(1) The Offense: An offender commits a trespass against another and sins against him. Because Luke deals with forgiveness from the perspective of the victim, he assumes that the offender has not realized his sin, or opted not to deal with his sin biblically toward the victim. Therefore, an estrangement—a wall as it were—now stands between believers. The Lord desires us to be at peace with one another (Hebrews 12:14), or to be reconciled to one another (Matthew 5:24). Accordingly, Christians cannot overlook or allow the offense to stand unchallenged because the result is an ongoing non-biblical estrangement.

(2) The Rebuke: If the offender does not seek to resolve the matter, it falls upon the victim to take the next step. Scripture says, “Rebuke Him.” Rebuke in the original is epitimao (ἐπιτιμάω) and is a command. It is a summary statement of the three-stage process of Matthew 18:15–17 that says go and tell him and includes the word elencho (ἐλέγχω) meaning “to reprove.”

“Reprove” (elencho) is a strong word that may mean “to bring to light, expose, convict, or convince someone of something.” [20] In Matthew’s context, it speaks of showing the offender his fault. The most biblical and loving thing one can do for a sinning brother is to rebuke him by confronting him with the truth of his sin and the solution for his sinful conduct. [21] Proverbs 27:5–6 says, Open rebuke is better than love carefully concealed. Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.

“Rebuke” (epitimao), in Luke 17, is also a strong term meaning “to rebuke, reprove, censure,” and also “to speak seriously, warn to prevent an action or bring one to an end.” [22]

Thus, it shows that the process of civil forgiveness demands a confrontation [non-combative] in love with the offender. This is not optional, but required. Matthew 18:15–17 spells out the details and stages of such a confrontation.

Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector (Matthew 18:15–17).

Here the Lord establishes three stages for working toward the goal of repentance, forgiveness, and restoration. The first stage is a rebuke in private, which one may attempt a second time as Titus 3:10 suggests. If the offender does not respond with hearing you (repentance), then a rebuke before witnesses is the second stage. Stage one is totally private; stage two is semi-private. [23] If the offender still refuses to hear them (repent), then it goes to the third stage that is, tell it to the church. [24]

At any of the stages of Matthew 18, repentance is the desired result. If the offender repents, the final step of forgiveness must be forthcoming as presented in Luke 17:3. On the other hand, if the offender refuses to hear “even the church,” Jesus requires us to take biblical sanctions for the benefit of both the church body and the unrepentant offender. Let us assume repentance first.

(3) The Repentance: Repentance is metanoeo that carries the fundamental idea of a change of mind and attitude. “Repentance involves a change of attitude toward sin followed by a corresponding change of action.” [25] Civil forgiveness goes hand-in-hand with repentance including the offer of restitution. For the offender genuinely to repent, he will couple verbal repentance with an offer of restitution, which does not depend upon fruits, completing restitution, or anything else. [26]

Therefore, at the most basic level a true change of mind (metanoeo) is the desired result of the rebuke. The offender truly “hears” his sin and sees it as both God and the victim see the sin. When he confesses his change of mind to the victim in the spirit of James 5:16, confess your faults one to another, [27] the victim must forgive him.

(4) Civil Forgiveness: At this stage of the summary procedure found in Luke 17:3–4, religious forgiveness (the vertical) is already accomplished. It happened as the victim released the offense and the offender to the Lord and turned any “vengeance” over to Him. The forgiveness step is an effort to reestablish the horizontal relationship of person-to-person to allow for restoration, peace, and fellowship.

Thus, based upon repentance, the victim must grant civil forgiveness to the offender. [28]

Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns to you, saying, ‘I repent,’ you shall forgive him (Luke 17:3–4).

If he repents, forgive him. Jesus clarifies what the normal result of the repentance of the offender should be, requiring the victim to forgive the offender, leaving any “fruits,” suggested restitution, or whatever may follow in the Lord’s hands. Jay Adams rightly observes that this may be the hardest step, even beyond the confrontation, for the victim. [29] The Lord’s disciples also had a very hard time with what Jesus taught.

Jesus continues with His teaching by saying that if the offender sins seven times a day and returns to the victim with a mind changing repentance, the victim must forgive (Luke 17:4). The Lord does not mention “fruit,” or that anything else has to precede the victim granting civil forgiveness to the offender. The responsibilities of “fruit,” restitution, and the like, the victim must leave between the Lord and the offender to carry out. Christ does not call upon the victim to “police” the actions of the offender after repentance.

That the disciples had a hard time with this we observe in the discourse that follows:

The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith” (Luke 17:5).

The Lord goes on to explain that it does not take much faith. It takes simple obedience to do what He commands about forgiveness.

So the Lord said, “If you have faith as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be pulled up by the roots and be planted in the sea,’ and it would obey you (Luke 17:6).

In other words, it does not take great faith. If you had the grain of a mustard seed, you could move trees and mountains. Jesus would then go on to illustrate this point with a parable, the Parable of the Unprofitable Servant.

And which of you, having a servant plowing or tending sheep, will say to him when he has come in from the field, ‘Come at once and sit down to eat’? But will he not rather say to him, ‘Prepare something for my supper, and gird yourself and serve me till I have eaten and drunk, and afterward you will eat and drink’? Does he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I think not. So likewise you, when you have done all those things which you are commanded, say, ‘We are unprofitable servants. We have done what was our duty to do’ (Luke 17:7–10).

The point of Jesus’ parable is that though a servant has worked all day obeying his master and comes in to dinner, he has not completed his duties until he prepares dinner for his master. His master will not invite him to eat immediately, but require him to fulfill his duty to prepare the master’s dinner. The servant will do his duty, prepare the master’s dinner, and then sit to eat. The servant does not receive special thanks for doing what his master commands. He does what is his duty.

In the same way, Jesus says that it does not take faith; it does not take feeling, or any other thing, but simply to obey and do what God commands. He commands that if an offender verbally exhibits repentance, our duty is to forgive him. If we only do what is our duty, we remain unprofitable servants. If we take steps beyond our duty, perhaps like the father of the prodigal son, then we become more “profitable servants.” [30]

The fact that makes this view of how a victim should grant forgiveness so hard is that we want justice—justice as we see it! We want the offender to pay! Even to suffer! What we forget is that the offender also has responsibilities for obtaining forgiveness as shown in the earlier examples. The victim must place the offender’s responsibilities in the hands of the Lord and to His timing for just vengeance. In personal situations, except for criminal law, the Lord promises to handle offenders who do not fulfill their side of the forgiveness principles. Victims must leave these things in His good hands. [31]

Joseph: A Biblical Example of a Victim’s Forgiveness

If ever there was a man whose family wronged him, it was Joseph. His brothers hated him, almost murdered him, and finally sold him into slavery. In all this, Joseph did not hate his brothers. When he finally met them, in his position as second to Pharaoh, he would test them to see if they had a change of mind about what they had done to him. Joseph used his younger brother, Benjamin, Jacob’s new favorite, to test the brothers who sold him into slavery. Upon seeing their concern for Benjamin, Joseph would treat them as family. After Jacob died, messengers told Joseph the wish of his father that he forgive his brothers.

So they sent messengers to Joseph, saying, “Before your father died he commanded, saying, ‘Thus you shall say to Joseph: “I beg you, please forgive the trespass of your brothers and their sin; for they did evil to you.”’ Now, please, forgive the trespass of the servants of the God of your father.” And Joseph wept when they spoke to him (Genesis 50:16–17).

Joseph rebuked his brothers (Genesis 50:20), they repented and offered themselves as the servants of Joseph—an act of restitution (Genesis 50:18). Based upon their words (not their servitude), Joseph would forgive his brothers (Genesis 50:19–21).

Then his brothers also went and fell down before his face, and they said, “Behold, we are your servants.” Joseph said to them, “Do not be afraid, for am I in the place of God? But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive. Now therefore, do not be afraid; I will provide for you and your little ones.” And he comforted them and spoke kindly to them (Genesis 50:18–21).

In approaching his brothers Joseph offered a strong rebuke when he told them, you meant evil against me (Genesis 50:20). Yet, in the plan of God, the Lord used this evil for the ultimate benefit of Joseph, Israel, and even Egypt.

Furthermore, the brothers gave solid indication of their change of mind (repentance), even offering themselves as servants in restitution. Finally, Joseph forgave them based upon their response to his rebuke and what they said. He left the details of their future actions in the hands of the Lord.

When the Offender Does Not Repent

What does a victim do about forgiveness when the offender rejects the rebuke and will not change his mind and repent—even all the way to the third stage of Matthew 18:15–17?

The victim has followed the principles on forgiveness before the Lord, releasing the offender and the offense to the Lord. He thus achieves (or perpetuates) forgiveness in his vertical relationship with God. Still the horizontal relationship remains unresolved.

At this point Jesus states, But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector (Matthew 18:17). The victim now considers the unrepentant offender as a nonbeliever. A separation needs to take place in obedience to Scripture and for the benefit of the unrepentant offender. The victim treats the offender as a nonbeliever because he is not walking as a believer. The victim loves him in the same way Jesus loves sinners and publicans, but he no longer relates to the unrepentant offender as a member of the body of Christ. This is not mere “shunning,” but a separation from Christian fellowship. [32]

Now the status of forgiveness is that before the Lord the victim has forgiven (vertically) the offender. The offender, however, has thrown up a wall of separation by refusal to repent, thus blocking horizontal forgiveness. We must stress that it is not the victim who is unforgiving, but the offender who is at fault. This parallels the situation that God finds Himself in when we sin and do not confess and we thus stand in a state of unforgiveness. Is this God’s fault? Absolutely not! It is the fault of the offender. The victim must understand this and continue to urge repentance to the offender.

Paul and the Corinthian Church

A congregational member in Corinth was living in gross immorality and did not correct the situation (repent). At the urging of the Lord through Paul, the church separated from, and put him out of the assembly. He stood as unforgiven until he would repent (1 Corinthians 5:1, 5, 13):

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles—that a man has his father’s wife (1 Corinthians 5:1)!

Deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus (1 Corinthians 5:5). 

But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person” (1 Corinthians 5:13).

The design of this principle is to “pressure” an offender into seeking restoration by repentance. The incestuous church member, treated in this manner, must have repented and acknowledged his sin to the Lord and those involved. The evidence is that later Paul urged the congregation to forgive and accept him back into the congregation:

This punishment which was inflicted by the majority is sufficient for such a man, so that, on the contrary, you ought rather to forgive and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one be swallowed up with too much sorrow. Therefore I urge you to reaffirm your love to him (2 Corinthians 2:6–8).

The foundation upon which the victim builds forgiveness to the offender is the latter’s change of mind.

Conclusion

In summarizing the conclusions on personal forgiveness, separate principles apply to an Offender and to a Victim.

The Offender is (1) to acknowledge his sin to the Lord, (2) go to the victim and acknowledge his sin, his change of mind, and propose restitution, and (3) an offender who follows these guidelines the Lord forgives and the victim should forgive also. If the victim refuses to forgive, he is now living in disobedience to the Lord.

The Victim is (1) to forgive before the Lord and release the offender and the offense to the Lord. (2) He is to go to the offender with the purpose of confronting him with his sin (rebuke), assuming the offender does not first come to him. (3) If the offender changes his mind and says so in repentance, the victim must forgive him. (4) If the offender does not repent through all three stages of Matthew 18:15–17 (in private, before witnesses, and before the church), the church should exclude him from its fellowship. Moreover, the unrepentant offender remains unforgiven because of his own actions (like we are before God when we do not confess sin). Finally, (5) if and when the offender repents, the victim must forgive him.

Final Note

Forgiveness is basic, restoring fellowship among believers. Forgiveness does not necessarily restore positions. Under the Mosaic Law, one could forgive a murderer or an adulterer and still see the offender executed as the temporal consequence of capital crime. The same is true for positions of spiritual leadership as seen with Moses (Numbers 20:11–12), Aaron (Numbers 20:23–28), and the apostate Levites (Ezekiel 44:10–16) who, as spiritual leaders, must have repented of their sin, yet lost their positions. Forgiveness is a first step to restore fellowship. We need to bring other biblical factors to bear on restoration to various positions of leadership. [33]

Appendix

Against You, You Only Have I Sinned (King David)

When David committed adultery with Bathsheba and then had her husband, Uriah, murdered, his sin was obvious. Yet, he did not remain unrepentant. The Holy Spirit reveals his confession in two Psalms (Psalm 32 and Psalm 51). In Psalm 51, David prays against You (God), You only, have I sinned (51:4). A shallow reading and superficial application of this verse has led to an unbiblical attitude toward sin. Based upon a supposed “loophole,” some conclude that believers need only to confess a victimizing sin to the Lord alone. Consequently, they say, the Lord forgives and the victim, without any perceived change in the offender, or restitution, is to forgive as the Lord has supposedly forgiven.

If the Bible student carries this through to its logical conclusion, believers could steal from one another, confess it to God, and that would be it. Believers could malign and slander one another, confess it to God, and that would be it. Believers could victimize one another in many ways, confess it to God, and that would be it. Does this sound familiar? It is an absolutely wrong interpretation!

Explanation of Psalm 51:4 in its historical-legal context.

The Lord reveals David’s double sin (adultery and murder) in 2 Samuel 11:1–12:14. A proper interpretation of the passage demands at least an outline of the specific historical details with their legal implications before God and men.

First: David stayed behind as the armies of Israel went to war. In the midst of his idleness he saw Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, and committed adultery with her. Uriah was off to war and none the wiser (2 Samuel 11:1–4).

Now what was David’s status before God’s word? Legally, at this point David and Bathsheba were both guilty of adultery. The punishment for adultery was death. The victim of the adultery was Uriah, the husband of Bathsheba. According to the Law, Uriah would have to press charges, if there were no eyewitnesses, leading to a Trial of Jealousy before the priest (Numbers 5:11–19). If the trial established her adultery, the priest cursed her and she presumably died (Numbers 5:20–31). The penalty for a capital crime, established by a minimum of two witnesses, was death (Leviticus 20:10; cp. Deuteronomy 19:15–21).

With Uriah gone, secrecy protected both David and Bathsheba from the external consequences of their sin.

Second: Bathsheba conceived a child of the illicit union that complicated the issue for David. If Uriah finds out, as the victim, he can press charges and have both David and Bathsheba put to death (2 Samuel 11:5). Now what was David’s status before God’s word? Legally, because of adultery, both faced the death penalty as the consequence of their sin.

Third: David’s first plan of action was to cover his sin. He tried to get Uriah together with his wife Bathsheba so that people would think the child to be born was Uriah’s child. This did not work as David hoped (2 Samuel 11:6–13). Now legally before God David and Bathsheba seek to cover-up their sin and thus escape the restitution penalties.

Fourth: Because David’s plan for Uriah to spend a night with his wife did not happen, David determined to eliminate Uriah. Thus, he planned a murder by sending Uriah to the hottest battle where the troops would abandon him. There Uriah was slain in battle. Uriah, as a good soldier, died in the glory of battle. For David and others in the plot, it was murder. The Lord was displeased (2 Samuel 11:14–25).

Now what was David’s status before the Lord? Legally the king is guilty of both adultery and murder; the penalty for both is death. Uriah, as the victim of the adultery, would have seen restitution. Murder, however, eliminated the victim of adultery. Whom did David sin against in the adultery? Uriah! He was eliminated. In the murder, David sins against God. Bathsheba was not the victim, for her husband could have required her death also. God is the victim and it is He who requires the restitution of life for life.

The penalty for premeditated murder is capital punishment (Exodus 21:12). God is the receiver of restitution where there is murder. From the beginning, murder defiled the earth and the Lord requires restitution. The life of the murderer is restitution to the Lord.

Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man. Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man (Genesis 9:5–6).

God requires the blood of the murdering beast and the murdering man. He also delegates the authority of execution to mankind. Capital punishment is not restitution to society, but to God. The Scriptures emphasize that murder pollutes the land before God. God’s requirement for cleansing the land of its pollution is the “life” of the murderer—capital punishment.

Whoever kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the testimony of witnesses; but one witness is not sufficient testimony against a person for the death penalty. Moreover you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death. And you shall take no ransom for him who has fled to his city of refuge, that he may return to dwell in the land before the death of the priest. So you shall not pollute the land where you are; for blood defiles the land, and no atonement can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it (Numbers 35:30–33).

In murder, God is the victim and execution makes restitution to God. God demands the capital punishment of the murderer, which cleanses the blood from the land.

Let us summarize, putting together the essential factors.

• Who was victim of the adultery between David and Bathsheba? Who was to receive restitution? Uriah! With Uriah’s murder, David removed the victim of this sin.
• Who was victim of the murder to receive restitution? God, and God alone. Not Bathsheba for she was also guilty of the capital offense of adultery
• Thus, David, in finally confessing his sin, could only make restitution to God for He was the only one left against whom David had specifically sinned: “Against You, You only, have I sinned” (Psalm 51:4).

Fifth: Nathan the prophet confronted David with his sin. The king repented and expected to make restitution with his very life. God, as the ultimate victim of this crime, modified the normal restitution. David in his confession, recorded in Psalm 51, only makes note of God as the ultimate victim of this murder. It is not a model, therefore, we should apply to our sins that victimize others (2 Samuel 12:1–14).

When we victimize another by our sin, we must not view it as “against God and God only” (cp. 1 Corinthians 8:12). Religious forgiveness requires civil forgiveness. The application of sinning against God only from Psalm 51:4 is a wrongheaded practice. There is no “loophole” in the Lord’s principles requiring forgiveness that bypass repentance and restitution to the victims of sin.

Notes

1. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas, Texas, 1948), 7:162–163.
2. Robert P. Lightner, Sin, the Savior, and Salvation (Nashville, 1991), 167.
3. Zane C. Hodges, Absolutely Free (Grand Rapids, 1989), 167–180.
4. The basic meaning of the primary Hebrew word for forgiveness is “pardon.” The Hebrew uses salach only of God as the ultimate victim and the one whom sin always affects.
5. “Some” refer to individuals involved in conversations and debates with the author over the issues of what God requires for forgiveness. The author is unaware of any written defense of this position, yet it prevails in many areas of “Grace” Christianity.
6. By the time David finished with his sin of victimizing Uriah by adultery with his wife, and then murdering the original victim (Uriah), God was the only party left as victim of this offense. See a more complete discussion in the Appendix of this article.
7. I do not see any problem with James 5:16 when interpreted with a view to offenders seeking civil forgiveness from victims by acknowledging their sin to the victims. This is not “public” confession for the sake of some “right to know.” The confession is as “public” as need be depending upon the number of victims involved, affected, or hurt by the sin of an offending sinner.
8. Confession is both to God by means of the trespass offering as well as to the victim who will receive the restitution payment. We assume that receipt of the restitution payment is proof of the confession to the individual.
9. W. Graham Scroggie, A Guide to the Gospels (London, 1948), 564.
10. Jay E. Adams, The Christian Counselor’s Manual (Phillipsburg, New Jersey, 1973), 65.
11. Ibid., 63.
12. Forgiveness from the victim’s point of view we will discuss later.
13. We cannot consider the works that Zacchaeus proposes as the basis of eternal salvation. They are the fruit of one just saved and overjoyed that he will not only see Jesus, but that Jesus will be a guest in his home. The salvation of Zacchaeus, like ours, God secures by “faith alone in Christ alone.” In answer to His critics, Jesus would comment on Zacchaeus being one for whom He came to seek and to save (Luke 19:10).
14. I mean sins like “That dirty so and so!” or, “I’ll show them!” (revenge). Others may include anger, bitterness, resentment, and moments of real hatred towards the offender. We cannot receive what God has planned as the benefits of this incident if we harbor such sins of attitude. This is true even if we take no retaliatory action.
15. Adams, op. cit., 65. The author added the bracketed material.
16. Louis A. Barbieri, Jr., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, 1983), “Matthew,” 32.
17. In the limited experience of the author, the Lord’s vengeance is real and the principles work. A number of unrepentant offenders have seen their businesses, ministries, and lives disintegrate before the vengeance of the Lord. The alternative for the victim is the self-destruction that takes place when attitudes of religious unforgiveness, revenge, and bitterness control his life.
18. If a non-Christian car salesman sells you a “lemon,” you forgive him, gently seek to recover the loss, pray for and desire his salvation, but be wise in doing future business with him.
19. J. Carl Laney, “The Biblical Practice of Church Discipline,” Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. No. 143 (October, 1986), 359. Laney sees Luke 17:3–4 as a summary of Matthew 18:15–17 and the process of seeking to resolve an offense and grant civil forgiveness.
20. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, 4th rev ed., 248.
21. Keith Megillian, “The Ministry of Rebuking,” Journal of Pastoral Practice 5 (1981), 22–23, Quoted by Laney, op. cit., 358.
22. A Greek-English Lexicon, 303.
23. I personally see the witnesses of stage two being objective and not tied to one side nor the other so that, if the victim is wrong and over reacting about a supposed offense, they can help with reconciliation, or if the offender is wrong and will not hear, they can give testimony at the third stage of this process.
24. Some see this as limited to church leadership; I do not. The leadership view is an effort to try to preserve privacy, but the word is ekklesia and normally has reference to the entire body of believers. God’s Word Itself does not protect the sins of the sinning Old Testament saints, but presents them as warnings to all believers regardless of maturity levels. Moreover, church leadership could already have been involved as “witnesses” in stage two. If there is still a refusal to hear (lack of repentance), the whole church will have to know anyway to carry out the biblical sanctions.
25. Laney, op. cit., 359.
26. There is strong debate over whether the offender must produce “fruits of repentance” before the victim forgives him. This does not negate in any way the fact that Scripture sets forth proper “fruits,” including seeking restitution for the offender. The actual relationship of when repentance secures forgiveness will by taken up under (4) Forgiveness.
27. We take this as the confession of sinning offenders to those who have been personally victimized by the offenders’ sin. It is only as “public” as need be.
28. Legal Offenses and Personal Offenses: Scripture upholds at all times a strong sense of “law.” If the offense is a crime having criminal consequences, one can still forgive in a civil way the offender, yet see the offender face the legal consequences of their sin. This serves to uphold God’s just standards governing humanity, as a deterrent to others, and as some of the required restitution to the victim. The Lord treats us in the very same way. Upon confession, He forgives our sin, but we still face its temporal consequences in time. On the other hand, personal offenses may end with repentance. If the offender seeks to do what God demands, fruits of repentance including restitution should normally follow the change of mind.
29. Adams, op. cit., 68.
30. Jay Adams has an excellent presentation of this context and passage, op. cit., 63–70.
31. Again, although personal experience is never the source of our faith, it has born out the truths of God handling offenders who abuse His grace by verbal repentance alone and go no farther as required.
32. Laney, op. cit., 362.
33. Examples are provided in a paper entitled: Disqualification from Spiritual Leadership before the Lord, Paul R. Schmidtbleicher, Th.M., 1995.