I'm at something of a crossroads, a transition period, in my life. As such I'm trying to wrap up some old baggage. I didn't have the best of starts in my young adult life, and the subject of how to forgive has weighed heavily on me recently. In Matthew 18 Jesus tells a parable about a man indebted to the master who has the debt forgiven, only to demand instant payment from one who owes him. In turn the master tosses him in jail until the debt is fully paid. The parallels should be absolutely obvious.

So finding forgiveness for this person in my life is pretty much an imperative. What was a stumbling block for me for far too long was what form forgiveness should take. In the parable, we see the man dragged before the master. He begs forgiveness. When that man goes to his debtor in turn, the debtor asks for forgiveness. Even the act of salvation requires a sinner to ask for forgiveness.

What happens for someone like me, when the debtor can't or won't ask?

That's kinda where I got stuck for far longer than I should have. The missing key for me was the difference between forgiveness and reconciliation. In relative terms, forgiveness is you getting over the anger of being wronged finding peace within yourself at whatever loss has occurred. It's imperative because God forgives us our sins and as we strive to be more like him we should also forgive the debtor of their sins. Like God we should approach them and give them the chance.

Penitence, on the other hand, is on the part of the debtor and reconciliation is when you bring together penitence and forgiveness. Immediately prior to the parable about the unforgiving debtor Jesus described how to reconcile with a brother who has sinned against you. Basically first go them in private and try to work it out. If they don't repent, go to them with a couple of trusted witnesses. If they still don't repent go before the church. At that point if they don't repent, then 'treat them as Heathens and Tax collectors' -- basically an untrustworthy person not to be associated with. They acknowledge the complaints and the problem gets worked out. If they can't or won't accept, then you move on and basically have as little to do with them as possible. I would add that this is not from a hateful or resentful perspective, but from the practical view that this person would do you abuse again and not have a problem with it. Your faith is not a license to abuse you, just as their lack of penitence is not a license to hate them.

As Jesus told Peter you should be willing to forgive not seven times, but seventy seven times. His meaning was that you should be very forgiving. As part and parcel to that, I'd venture that if someone were to suddenly snap out of it and come to you years later to ask for forgiveness it should be extended.

Yet, in Matthew 15 we see Jesus with a Gentile woman. The disciples urged she be sent away but Jesus gave her a chance and allowed her to demonstrate her faith in earnest. Jesus knew she was on the level, but the disciples were a bit dubious. The same can be said for someone you've extended forgiveness to. The best way I can express my thoughts on this would be that if someone were tried and then convicted of embezzling from the church, but then truly seems to have repented, they should be welcomed back to the church... but maybe not put in charge of the treasury without a lengthy time without causing any more issues and not without scrutiny.

Finally, there’s the pain. In my case some physical and some emotional. For that I look at Jacob. He famously wrestled either God or an Angel, depending on who you ask. During the altercation he was touched on his hip, and had it dislocated. He was then blessed. Later on he was seen limping due to the injury, and the last time we see him in the Bible he’s leaning on a cane. The pain wasn’t a curse, it was a reminder to Jacob that God could have utterly broken him at any time during the altercation, but instead granted him the blessing he sought in recognition of his perseverance.