Not Forgiving What Has Been Forgiven

[RDKirk]

You know of the parable of the unforgiving steward (Matthew 18:21-35).

What a lot of Americans may not realize is the implication of the structural context of the situation.

The steward who owned his master such an immense amount of money is in that position because he was a chief steward who had atrociously mismanaged his master's assets (see also the parable of the talents, Matthew 25:14-30).

This is what people don't realize: This steward was at the top of a particular "vertical" of servants that he managed. The enormous mass of money he owned was the accumulation of all that was managed by the servants below him in his vertical.

When the master forgave him of his losses, that was forgiveness of the entire accumulated losses of his whole vertical. In other words, all the servants in the vertical below him were automatically forgiven by the same act of the master.

That servant he grabbed by the neck had to be in his vertical--he could not lay hands on someone else's servant (Romans 14:4). Thus, he was holding a lesser servant accountable for a debt that had already been forgiven from above.

It's notable that this was the only parable that Jesus immediately explained, and the explanation is especially scary...it is literally a salvational issue.

 

[archer75]

Could you be a little more explicit? I want to follow this better.

 

[A New Dawn]

I don't know that I agree with your analysis, as the debt of the lesser servant was still due, not forgiven.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Interesting theory, but not one with which I could agree. Much like a thousand bags of gold, our debt to God for our sins against Him is one we could never possibly repay. And still he forgives our sins and voided our debt at the foot of the cross. If we refuse to forgive the comparatively minor trespasses against us (100 silver coins versus 1,000 bags of gold) then our Heavenly Father will not forgive our sins either.

This is a heavily repeated theme of Jesus.

Matthew 5:7 "Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy."

Matthew 5:43-48

"43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Matthew 5:12 "And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors."

 

[RDKirk]

I don't know that I agree with your analysis, as the debt of the lesser servant was still due, not forgiven.

I didn't make my point clear, then.

Be gracious to me, God,
according to Your faithful love;
according to Your abundant compassion,
blot out my rebellion.

Wash away my guilt
and cleanse me from my sin.

For I am conscious of my rebellion,
and my sin is always before me.

Against You—You alone—I have sinned
and done this evil in Your sight.
So You are right when You pass sentence.

Neither of the servants had any money of his own. Everything either of them had was from the master. Both of their debts were ultimately to the master.

The higher servant's huge debt was the accumulation of all the debts of the servants below him. The debt of the lower servant was not to the higher servant, it was ultimately to the master.

When the master forgave the accumulated debt of the higher servant, that was forgiveness of the debts of all the servants below him.

This is the point that I think is relevant to us today: The unforgiving servant was holding another servant accountable for a debt that had already been forgiven from above.

 

[A New Dawn]

I didn't make my point clear, then.

Be gracious to me, God,
according to Your faithful love;
according to Your abundant compassion,
blot out my rebellion.

Wash away my guilt
and cleanse me from my sin.

For I am conscious of my rebellion,
and my sin is always before me.

Against You—You alone—I have sinned
and done this evil in Your sight.
So You are right when You pass sentence.

Neither of the servants had any money of his own. What either of them had was from the master.

The higher servant's huge debt was the accumulation of all the debts of the servants below him. The debt of the lower servant was not to the higher servant, it was ultimately to the master.

When the master forgave the accumulated debt of the higher servant, that was forgiveness of the debts of all the servants below him.

I understand what you are suggesting, I just don't agree with that interpretation. I think that the servants were paid by the master, so that they might obtain food and a place to live. The greater servant was paid the higher amount and could therefore be in the position to loan the lesser servant money. The parable, to me, does not make sense with the interpretation you are placing on it.

IF the lesser servant's debt was to the master, than the greater servant had no place to refuse to forgive the debt because it wasn't his money. It only makes sense if the debt is directly from the lesser servant to the greater servant.

 

[RDKirk]

Interesting theory, but not one with which I could agree. Much like a thousand bags of gold, our debt to God for our sins against Him is one we could never possibly repay. And still he forgives our sins and voided our debt at the foot of the cross. If we refuse to forgive the comparatively minor trespasses against us (100 silver coins versus 1,000 bags of gold) then our Heavenly Father will not forgive our sins either."

I don't see any point at which you disagree with what I said.

 

[RDKirk]

I understand what you are suggesting, I just don't agree with that interpretation. I think that the servants were paid by the master, so that they might obtain food and a place to live. The greater servant was paid the higher amount and could therefore be in the position to loan the lesser servant money. The parable, to me, does not make sense with the interpretation you are placing on it.

I would suggest going back to Luke 12 and comparing the foolish rich man with the wise steward. Jesus tells us that He provides what we need on a daily basis.

Also, look at what the "reward" was for the wise steward of Luke 12 as well as the good stewards of Matthew 25. Just as the "loan" to the steward from the master was for the purpose of investment, so was the loan from the greater steward to the lesser steward for the purpose for investment, all all profit went to the master.

The reward for good stewardship is a greater amount to steward. No steward gets "more" for the purpose of a more lavish personal lifestyle. If a servant has "more" it's for the purpose of greater stewardship to the greater profit of the master. The steward who thinks "more" is for his own pleasure will be cut to ribbons and cast into the outer darkness.

 

[A New Dawn]

I would suggest going back to Luke 12 and comparing the foolish rich man with the wise steward. Jesus tells us that He provides what we need on a daily basis.

Also, look at what the "reward" was for the wise steward of Luke 12 as well as the good stewards of Matthew 25. Just as the "loan" to the steward from the master was for the purpose of investment, so was the loan from the greater steward to the lesser steward for the purpose for investment, all all profit went to the master.

The reward for good stewardship is a greater amount to steward. No steward gets "more" for the purpose of a more lavish personal lifestyle. If a servant has "more" it's for the purpose of greater stewardship to the greater profit of the master. The steward who thinks "more" is for his own pleasure will be cut to ribbons and cast into the outer darkness.

You can't intertwine parables like that, they have different purposes. And unless you are suggesting the servants are slaves, then, no, the master doesn't provide what we (they) needed on a daily basis.

 

[RDKirk]

You can't intertwine parables like that, they have different purposes.

If the parables did not accurately depict what were then real-life activities, they would have had no applicability. Each parable of stewardship accurately depicts the activities of stewards, and thus they all give us a picture of what it was to be a steward and the master-steward relationship.

And unless you are suggesting the servants are slaves, then, no, the master doesn't provide what we (they) needed on a daily basis.

Actually, most translations do translate doulos as "slave."

Jesus affirms in Luke 12, to which I referred, that we are provided our requirements on a daily basis. His "wise steward" parable was explicitly given to explain His parable of the foolish rich man.

 

[A New Dawn]

If the parables did not accurately depict what were then real-life activities, they would have had no applicability. Each parable of stewardship accurately depicts the activities of stewards, and thus they all give us a picture of what it was to be a steward and the master-steward relationship.



Actually, most translations do translate doulos as "slave."

Jesus affirms in Luke 12, to which I referred, that we are provided our requirements on a daily basis. His "wise steward" parable was explicitly given to explain His parable of the foolish rich man.

Actually, most translations use "servant" (I just looked it up.) And considering that the same word is used by Paul when he described himself as a bondservant of Christ, I'm going to have to go with servant. You are free to interpret it how you choose.