Justice vs Forgiveness

---

This site has moved to robert.williamsonline.us.

---

Phil Dennison berates me for my "atta' girl" comments regarding Clara Harris. Specifically, he accuses me of "simply rejecting out-of-hand the words and actions of God Himself in the New Testament, as if they don't matter at all." [The "words and actions" he referred to were Christ's teachings on forgiving one another]

This is a good opportunity for discussing the whole question of forgiveness vs. justice.

The first thing I'd like to do is address some inconsistencies. If Clara Harris had gone to court and got a handsome divorce settlement from her husband instead of running him down, I'd approve of that. I doubt anyone would compain about my alleged hypocrisy. But in both cases, Clara Harris would have been anything but forgiving. So why are these standards being so selectively applied?

The answer is quite simple. The standard is being misconstrued and misapplied, and a consistent application of such a misconstrued standard would be easily demostrated to be ridiculous. A very selective application of a flawed standard creates the illusion of validity.

Is a Christian always to forgive and forget and turn the other cheek in every circumstance, no matter what? Would I be wrong to defend myself, my family, and my property against an attacker? Would a Christian policeman be sinning by arresting someone? Would a Christian judge or jury be sinning by convicting and punishing a criminal? How about the sins of a Christian prosecutor prosecuting instead of forgiving criminals? Wouldn't it also be wrong for me to even defend myself if wrongly accused of a crime - shouldn't I turn the other cheek?

Clearly, an unbridled and simplistic view that takes the various teachings on forgiveness out of context is not a viable or reasonable position.

I also need to address a few specific misapplications of some Scriptures.

1. The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:38-45)

If I were to take the Sermon on the Mount literally, removing it from the context of the rest of scripture, then yes, I'd forgive under any and all circumstances regardless. But I'd also only have one eye and one hand. And I couldn't save any money, or make a budget that included categories for food and clothing. The Sermon on the Mount, I think, is best understood as a radical distillation of the practical elements of day-to-day Christianity, worded as strongly as possible to make the contrast between Christianity and other religions as stark as possible.

2. Jesus Disarms Peter (Matthew 26:51-52)

Jesus disarmed Peter because the timing was right for His arrest, and Peter was interfering. Remember that earlier Jesus had rebuked Peter for Peter's opposition to Christ's impending death. Also, just before this incident (in Luke 22:35-36) Jesus commanded His disciples "he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one". Christ's disarming of Peter just a few hours later cannot rationally be construed as a contradiction of His commands here.

3. The Woman Caught in Adultery

Jesus had a perfect opportunity to publicly and clearly refute the death penalty. But He didn't. Instead, He kew that it was a trap and refused to get involved. The Pharisees had no authority to carry out an execution. Moreover, they did not bring the man involved in the adultery before Christ. The Old Testament law the Pharisees used to condemn her was given by God, so a refutation of that law by Jesus here would mean God was contradicting Himself. It was a trap, and it was not a just situation. This has absolutely no bearing on legitimate questions of justice.

Having established what the Bible's teaching is not, let's now consider what the Bible does teach.

First, the Bible teaches that mercy and justice are not mutually exclusive. The necessity of Christ's atonement is sufficient proof, I think. God is merciful but He must also be just.

Second, the Bible teaches that forgiveness is condition on repentance. This is true for God forgiving our sins - we must repent. When Christ forgave the woman caught in adultery, He warned her to leave her life of sin. It's also true among ment. For instance, in Luke 17:3-4 Jesus said "Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him."

Third, the Bible teaches that there are still consequences after forgiveness. Consider David and Bathsheba. Even after David repented of his sin, two things remained true. "The sword shall never depart from thine house" (2 Sam 1:10) and "the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die." (2 Sam 1:14) even though "The LORD also hath put away thy sin".

Sin has consequences. It did for David and Bathsheba. It did for Karla Faye Tucker. The eternal consequences of sin can be forgiven, as can temporal consequences. But divine or human forgiveness does not necessarily mean there are no temporal consequences.

It is not a rational or scriptural position to suggest that Christians have a duty to unconditionally and automatically forgive and forget all sins to the extent that there are no consequences. If I sin against God, there will possibly be temporal consequences. At a minimum, my relationship with Him is affected until I confess and repent my sin. If I sin against another person, there may well be temporal consequences. If I commit a crime, even though the victim may forgive me, I would still expect to suffer some form of punishment.

While this is entirely inconsistent with a warped understanding of forgiveness, it is perfectly consistent with a Biblical understanding. Biblical forgiveness is not unconditional, not automatic, and does not necessarily absolve one of all consequences.

Posted by Robert at February 07, 2003 03:35 PM | TrackBack