I think sentiment can be as much a virtue as a vice, depending on the context; it always makes things harder, though, for sure.
I had a thought while reading the passage, though — how do we reconcile the sort of “grievance process” described at the beginning, that ends with “treat them like a gentile or tax collector”, with the sort of limitless forgiveness in the latter two thirds? It seems like at least SLIGHTLY contradictory instruction.
What I've read or heard about it in the past is that "treating them like a gentile or tax collector" could mean simply to not associate with them.
But forgiveness does not necessarily mean reconciliation. It is possible to forgive without being in relationship. It could also mean that you offer forgiveness when it is sought. In the first situation, it doesn't seem like the offending party is seeking forgiveness.
That definitely makes sense and is consistent. I also sometimes wonder if forgiveness without reconciliation is enough. Not that I have ever been able to live up to that standard — I just wonder.
I most often write these posts in somewhat of a "stream of thought" kind of way. I've always been moved by the power/authority Jesus gave the disciples in John 20 in regard to holding on to others' sins. I take it quite literally.
I think sentiment can be as much a virtue as a vice, depending on the context; it always makes things harder, though, for sure.
I had a thought while reading the passage, though — how do we reconcile the sort of “grievance process” described at the beginning, that ends with “treat them like a gentile or tax collector”, with the sort of limitless forgiveness in the latter two thirds? It seems like at least SLIGHTLY contradictory instruction.
This is a good question.
What I've read or heard about it in the past is that "treating them like a gentile or tax collector" could mean simply to not associate with them.
But forgiveness does not necessarily mean reconciliation. It is possible to forgive without being in relationship. It could also mean that you offer forgiveness when it is sought. In the first situation, it doesn't seem like the offending party is seeking forgiveness.
That definitely makes sense and is consistent. I also sometimes wonder if forgiveness without reconciliation is enough. Not that I have ever been able to live up to that standard — I just wonder.
Certainly reconciliation is the goal. But as long as free will exists. Forgiveness can happen on one side, but reconciliation requires two parties.
Also what’s with the fastening and loosening lines?
Do you mean why did I include it?
I most often write these posts in somewhat of a "stream of thought" kind of way. I've always been moved by the power/authority Jesus gave the disciples in John 20 in regard to holding on to others' sins. I take it quite literally.
No no I’m glad you included it, I am just wrestling with what it means.