Matthew 18:21-35

Jesus is ALWAYS right!!!!!!!

 

YES!!!

Heb12:6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

Notice that it's talking about punishment here, not in the afterlife.

1Jo 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

The context here is fellowship, not salvation. We reap what we sow, saved or unsaved.

P.S. The KJV lacks nothing, the NIV on the other hand leaves out;Matt 17:21
Matt 18:11 Matt 23:14 Mark 7:16 Mark 9:44 Mark 9:46 Mark 11:26 Mark 15:28 Luke 17:36 Luke 23:17 John 5:4 Acts 8:37 Acts 15 :34 Acts 24:7 Acts 28:29 Romands 16:24 1John 5:7(takes part of v.6 and v.8 to make v.7)

 

Yes! Jesus was known for "telling the truth".

This is really important to remember when reading the Matt 18 parable about "forgiveness revoked"!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

He does not say "your sins are no longer forgiven" He says that IF we as saints choose the same form of rebellion as the slave in that example instead of being grateful for our OWN salvation and out of gratitude to God forgiving others who sin against ut - that we too will have ALL our sins to pay for.

This is in the form of a "real" warning about a "real" danger. (Common sense but some don't like this part of the Gospel account)

In Rev 14:10 we find that when the wicked pay for their own sins - they pay IN THE PRESENCE of the Lamb and of all His Holy ones.

What a sad day that will be. The suffering of the second death by the wicked will be fully IN the presence of the Lamb AND of His Holy ones.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Mt. 13:10-13, “And the disciples came and said to Him, "Why do You speak to them in parables?" Jesus answered them, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. "For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him. "Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.”

 

I don't understand the point of the passage but notice that the slave remained a slave and left the house a slave. He was only ever dealt with as a slave never as an adopted Child of God. The 'had his sins forgiven, therefore 'saved'' has got to be wrong.
He was never a son.

johnp.

 

I thank you for your invitation to come over to this thread Eladar I don't get out very often.

Matt 18:25 Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.
Let see if I understand this. You are saying that because this man, representing all mankind?, cannot pay his debt then the Lord will take his wife and his children and sell them on. Sent to Hell to help pay off the debt? The wife and the children paying for the sins of the father? What about the wife's debt? Who pays for that? What about the kids debts? And we are accused of calling Him a Despot! This must be a fly in the ointment?
MT 18:26 "The servant fell on his knees before him. `Be patient with me,' he begged, `and I will pay back everything.' 27 The servant's master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.
The Lord took pity on the man and canceled the debt! But the debt cannot be canceled can it? If it could then Jesus need not have paid the price. This is a big flaw in your argument. How do you deal with this?
MT 18:28 "But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii. He grabbed him and began to choke him. `Pay back what you owe me!' he demanded.
He is still a servant and he leaves the house! The lord's house. But then he has not had his debt paid in full but just had his debt canceled and it looks like it was canceled on condition. A conditional cancelling. How am I doing? He is not adopted as a son of the house but is still a servant.
If it is suggested that the sacrifice of Jesus would cancel his debt and it was on this basis that his debt was cancelled then what could his Lordship be but a criminal? Extortion with menaces I think. Did Jesus pay the penalty or not? If He did then this man's debt is paid for is it not? Take a look at the law on debt and you will find that as the debtor cannot refuse a payment made to the one who is owed the debt by a third party but must be released, whether he wants that or not, so the one owed cannot refuse a payment made by a third party but must accept it and accept the one so blessed his release. There is a mediator for both parties.
We see no mediator in this passage.

Rather than the passage dealing with the debt of man and and his ability to lose what he gained it has I think more to do with Jesus telling us what we are like. This is supposed to have the effect of showing sin for what it is. That is, in control. Because can you really say you are forgiving to those around you? Answer yes and you are selfrighteous and answer no then you need Christ.
MT 18:35 "This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart."

Unless you forgive everyone, completely, that causes you grief then you will go to Hell.
Way you go! I can do it. It's Jesus that covers me man. God looks on His heart not mine.
Just remember, trying is not enough, you must be perfect like my Heavenly Father is perfect.
As for me there are issues from the past yet to be resolved. That's honest. A confession. I fail to forgive as I should. Can you do better?

johnp.

 

Hello Eladar.

...cannot pay his debt then the Lord will take his wife and his children and sell them on.

You must not forget that this is a parable. Which means? If I have a guess I would say that is code for 'leave the bit out you don't like'? I find parables best if the nasty bit is left in.

Of course leaving the wife and children out serves your purpose but can this really be done here? I think not. They are not an integral part of the story unless they are. There is no reason to introduce the family at all unless the family were going to help pay towards the debts of the father.
Anyway you lose your assertion of your proof text.

Forgive me then. I did not set out to upset you. How do I play games by repeating the words of a parable? Sent to Hell to help pay off the debt? The wife and the children paying for the sins of the father? What about the wife's debt? Who pays for that? What about the kids debts?
That's what it says! And we are accused of calling Him a Despot! This must be a fly in the ointment? Where am I wrong?
That you think the family should be kept out of it?

You neglect to deal with my main point. That Jesus died for my sins. No charge can be brought against me. The payment was paid in full and my sin has been forgiven. Forgiven. You involve God with unforgiving behaviour? How can you forgive and then unforgive? I thought the parable said from the heart. Does this not apply to God? Does this not apply to you? Your tenor says no.
But as I said in the last post Eladar, "Way you go man!" Your righteousness must be righteousness nothing less will do.

johnp.

 

Hello Eladar.

Then you are saying the parable is not about God? What is true of them who owned slaves would be true of God in the parable. No? Why not?

You can't say I can keep them and then ignore them. How do you deal with the wife and kids?

Ok I will withdraw for a while and see how the conversation goes. I'll see you later.

johnp.

 

The problem is that this is an air tight illustration on Christ's part - there is no way to stand it on its head.

The argument FOR forgiveness in the parable is BASED ON REAL forgiveness. IF the slave COULD have argued "YES but you did not REALLY forgive me so I had no BASIS for REALLY forgiving anyone else" then he could have gotten of scott free.

Christ applies it to the saints AND with the same basis - claiming that God DID FORGIVE us and that OUT OF THAT experience WE are to forgive others.

The parable NEVER makes your point of "God DID NOT forgive you but YOU should STILL forgive others".

It just is not there.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Matt 18:23-35 Forgiveness revoked – as opposed to blaming God for not “preserving us”.

Here we see that the Kingdom of Heaven is the context – and the servant “owes” in that eternal reality – a debt that is far greater than he and all his substance could ever repay. He is judged as owing the debt and payment is demanded.

So it is for all of humanity – the law points to the debt owed (Romans 6) the “Wages of Sin is death.” And Rev 20 – 21 tells us that this is in fact the suffering and torment of the 2nd death – eternal.

Though the slave undervalues his own debt and over-values his own ability to “repay” – the Lord has mercy on him anyway and “Forgives the Debt” – full and complete forgiveness in the scenario regarding “the Kingdom of Heaven”. This is key to the Arminian point.

But (as Christ points out in His model prayer of Matt 6) those who Are forgiven are under obligation to forgive others.

Here the case of “the Forgiven” slave is that HE is “unwilling” to show forgiveness to others even though he HAS been forgiven.

Exercising his free-will he is “Unwilling” to give to others that SAME sense of mercy and compassion that HAS been shown him by his Lord.

The Lord does not show any reservation about the full and complete forgiveness that HE gave to His servant.

Here is the direct appeal to the same Point we see Christ making in Matt 6 “Forgive us OUR debts AS WE forgive our debtors” and then adds “For if you do NOT forgive others then…” well you know what He said.

Clearly – “forgiveness revoked” with FULL payment made now – by the slave!
.

Here many shout “OH NO He will NOT!”. They think that “once forgiven ALWAYS forgiven” applies even to those in rebellion. (A good 4-point Calvinist POV by the way).

Here Christ charges that the point is valid for Christians. He argues that WE have been forgiven by our heavenly Father – and that HE will revoke Our forgiveness just as we see in this story and just as Christ claimed in Matt 6 If “we” do not persevere in showing the Same kind regard for forgiving our brothers.

Rather than God blaming Himself for our lack of perseverance or God claiming that HE failed to preserve us – HE charges that WE are under obligation to obey as He directs or be faced with “forgiveness revoked” just as it is really described in this chapter.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Yes. This statement is sometimes written off as "you can't believe what Christ said in the Gospels any more because after the cross all that changed. The NT writers are just telling stories about the way IT USED to be".

At other times it is written off as "a warning - about something that can never happen. Like warning against a purple easter bunny that might eat your tires if you don't keep your car clean".

No purple easter bunny.

No possibility of "forgiveness revoked".

And of course the 3rd way to get out of this scripture is to say that the king did not really forgive the slave and it really has nothing to do with us.

In Christ,

Bob