Then Peter came up and said to him,
“Lord, how often will my brother sin against me,
and I forgive him? As many as seven times?”
Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times,
but seventy-seven times.
– Matthew 18:21–22 –

What happens when someone asks for forgiveness, but all outward signs indicate anything but a willing spirit? Is the offended party obligated to grant forgiveness the moment the offender says, “Will you forgive me,” or does it depend? If forgiveness depends on repentance, as Jesus says in Luke 17:3, just how much fruit is requisite for such repentance to be deemed genuine?

To put it into actual situations: Does the offended child whose sibling is forced to say “I’m sorry” have to mechanically say, “I forgive you”? Or to take it one step further, does the parent need to discipline the hesitating child for not offering forgiveness immediately?

What about the Christian family of a victim of violent crime, do they need to automatically grant forgiveness when the judge forces the criminal to issue an apology? Or are they permitted to consider the sincerity of the apology? Equally, should Christians forgive terrorists, who go to their deaths spewing hatred against their victims?

Or more basically, when pastors mediate conflict in the church, what is the proper response to a church member whose longstanding self-justification is suddenly reversed? Does the offended party need to issue an immediate grant of forgiveness? Or does the newfound repentance need time to settle? Equally, if the member will not forgive when repentance is genuine, what must be done then?

Fortunately, we are not the first generation to wrestle through such questions. And most recently, I came across an incredibly illuminating passage from John Calvin on Jesus’s teachings on forgiveness and repentance. Ever pastoral, Calvin provides some important qualifications for offering forgiveness, granting forgiveness, and even withholding forgiveness until repentance is deemed genuine.

Strikingly, Calvin does not suffer from our modern captivity to making others feel affirmed. Instead, he affirms the need to offer forgiveness to any and all who ask. But wisely, he also cautions Christians from mistakenly granting forgiveness prematurely. In his comments on Jesus’s teaching on forgiveness, he rightly urges Christians to extend grace in the same way they received grace. But also, he holds the line on repentance, stressing the importance of making sure repentance is genuine.

Having recently thought quite a bit about this very point, I offer six reflections on Calvin’s views on forgiveness, repentance, and reconciliation. I have added his full comment at the bottom.

Six Reflections on Calvin’s View of Forgiveness

From Calvin’s commentary on Matthew 18:21–22, let me offer six reflections.

1. Calvin’s comments are not inspired and should not be taken as holy writ.

That being said, his counsel is wise, judicious, and pastoral. He understands the complexities of the human heart, not to mention the sinful proclivities of fallen sinners. Accordingly, Calvin offers practical advice on applying the words of our Lord to situations where forgiveness is required. For the offended, they should seek, pray for, and pursue peace, even as they must wait for repentance before reconciliation can be said to have occurred.

2. Calvin leads with stress on pardon.

Indeed, the cross of Christ is the means by which sinners can have their sins forgiven and debts paid. And when such grace is lavished upon undeserving sinners, we have an obligation to grant forgiveness to others also. This is the whole point of Jesus’s parable in Matthew 18:21–35. And it is the pressure that works its way through the heart of the redeemed.

Because we have been forgiven for our great sin against God, we cannot withhold forgiveness from others whose sins against us are slight by comparison. And more, when someone has offended us, we should take the initiative to offer forgiveness, even if such an offer is rejected. Still, this offer of forgiveness can be distinguished from the actual granting of forgiveness. The former is what it means to seek peace with others as much as it depends upon you (Rom. 12:18; cf. Matt. 5:9). Yet, the latter transaction of forgiveness can only be conferred if there is actual repentance, which Calvin acknowledges and addresses.

3. Calvin reinforces the need for repentance.

Following Jesus, Calvin instructs us that forgiveness must be offered on condition of repentance (Luke 17:3). But Calvin doubles down by considering what repentance is. He writes,

For repentance is a sacred thing, and therefore needs careful examination; but as soon as the offender gives probable evidence of conversion, Christ desires that he shall be admitted to reconciliation, lest, on being repulsed, he lose courage and fall back.

Importantly, Calvin is staying on the line of Scripture. He is measuring well the words of Christ. He is not making repentance heavier or lighter than is required, but is instead reinforcing its importance and its effect. Without repentance there can be no forgiveness; but as soon as repentance has been judged to be genuine, reconciliation must be commenced. That being said, as repentance awaits, there is a way to pursue peace, and Calvin also speaks to that.

4. Calvin distinguishes between two kinds of forgiveness.

In his estimation, there is a way to offer a forgiveness to someone with whom you have an “unfavorable opinion,” and there is a way to grant forgiveness to someone with whom favor has been restored by way of repentance. He writes,

The words of Luke give rise to another question; for Christ does not order us to grant forgiveness, till the offender turn to us and give evidence of repentance.² I reply, there are two ways in which offences are forgiven. If a man shall do me an injury, and I, laying aside the desire of revenge, do not cease to love him, but even repay kindness in place of injury, though I entertain an unfavourable opinion of him, as he deserves, still I am said to forgive him. . . . A second kind of forgiving is, when we receive a brother into favour, so as to think favourably respecting him, and to be convinced that the remembrance of his offence is blotted out in the sight of God.

Today, Calvin’s distinction might be the difference between refusing revenge and offering forgiveness (Calvin’s first forgiveness) and granting forgiveness and being reconciled (Calvin’s second forgiveness). Or it may be the difference between an attitudinal forgiveness (similar to Calvin’s first) and a transactional forgiveness (similar to Calvin’s second). There are many who have made this distinction today (e.g., Paul David Tripp, Jay E. Adams, Ken Sande, Alfred Poirer, Tim Lane),[1] and it is confirming that Calvin does the same. Yet, Calvin also offers an important caveat.

5.  Calvin issues a caution in granting forgiveness.

Calvin writes, “As soon as a man by words makes profession of repentance, are we bound to believe him? Were this done, we must of necessity go willingly and knowingly into mistake; for where will be discretion, if any man may freely impose on us, even to the hundredth offence?”

Here again, Calvin demonstrates his knowledge of the human heart. How often does Scripture warn of hypocritical words (Isa 29:13; cf. Matthew 23) and deceptive hearts (Jer. 17:9). Calvin knows that men speak from their heart (Matt. 12:34), and that sometimes their words cover their true intentions (cf. Prov. 23:7). As Proverbs 26:23–26 reminds us,

²³    Like the glaze covering an earthen vessel are fervent lips with an evil heart.
²⁴    Whoever hates disguises himself with his lips and harbors deceit in his heart;
²⁵    when he speaks graciously, believe him not, for there are seven abominations in his heart;
²⁶    though his hatred be covered with deception, his wickedness will be exposed in the assembly.

Indeed, the granting of forgiveness is not mechanical. And neither is the use of numbers in Matthew 18:21–22—to forgive seventy-seven times not merely seven, is not to be taken literally, but literarily. There is a spiritual principle in these numbers, one that derives from Genesis 4 and the first comparison between God’s perfect justice on anyone that would harm Cain (Gen. 4:15), compared the outlandish retaliation offered by Lamech if anyone struck him (Gen. 4:22–23).

Indeed, God’s standard of justice, his lex talionis (law of retribution), is perfectly rendered as a sevenfold justice. Lamech’s threat of seventy-seven fold justice distorts God’s justice and proves his evil and vindictive ways. Now, however, in Christ there is a reversal. While Peter offers forgiveness at the level justice, Jesus is saying that our passion for mercy and forgiveness overwhelms all claims of justice. In other words, Jesus is teaching about forgiveness what James, his brother, would later express, that “mercy triumphs over judgment” (James 4:13).

Long story short, Jesus use of numbers in Matthew 18 is not calling us to count the offenses, so that as long as the sum total is under seventy-seven, we must offer pardon no questions asked. No, Jesus’s words require a heart of wisdom. They press the offended party to love mercy and to extend mercy to anyone who would seek mercy according to the truth. Yet, that does not mean that forgiveness is granted as soon as “I’m sorry” is uttered.

Such a mechanical approach to forgiveness cheapens grace and evacuates the meaning of repentance. Knowing this, Calvin offers caution about hastily extending forgiveness. Yes, every repentant sinner must be forgiven. But first genuine repentance must be evidenced. And if one person cannot ascertain the genuineness of a confession and concomitant repentance, then elders of the church are given to the church to help discern such situations.

Sixth, Calvin acknowledges the difference between forgiveness and full trust.

At the end of his comments, the Genevan pastor states, “It must be observed that, when any man, through his light and unsteady behaviour, has exposed himself to suspicion, we may grant pardon when he asks it.” Again, Calvin stresses the importance of not holding this man’s sins against him. Yet, he offers an important counterpoint: “and yet [we] may do so in such a manner as to watch over his conduct for the future, that our forbearance and meekness, which proceed from the Spirit of Christ, may not become the subject of his ridicule.”Calvin makes an important distinction between forgiving and trusting. Forgiving someone makes four promises, as Ken Sande has noted concerning forgiveness:

“I will not think about this incident.”
“I will not bring up this incident again or use it against you.”
“I will not talk to others about this incident.”
“I will not allow this incident to stand between us or hinder our personal relationship.”

In this way, forgiveness refuses to use someone’s sin against them. But making these four promises does not mean the same thing as trusting them in the same way. Indeed, trust is something that must be recovered and rebuilt over time, even as forgiveness is granted in a moment.

Calvin finishes with this wise reflection and it reminds us that there are many things about forgiveness that are not easily understood or applied. Many talk about forgiveness but mean something else. Truly, there are countless questions that come up when grappling with sin, its causes and its consequences. And thus, we need to gain a heart of wisdom to become true peacemakers.

The Painful Joy of Becoming Peacemakers

In the end, Calvin’s pastoral reflections remind us how sin complicates all of life. While Christians know that forgiveness is central to the message of the Bible, that does not mean this doctrine is immediately straightforward or that Bible-believing Christians are equally skilled to pursue peace. To put it differently, while Christians may know how to spell f-o-r-g-i-v-e-n-e-s-s, that doesn’t always mean they know all that forgiveness spells for the Christian.

That there are two types of forgiveness conditioned by repentance, which is also qualified by evidences (see e.g., Thomas Watson’s six marks of true repentance), means that all matters of peace-making require biblical wisdom. And such wisdom comes through biblical study and Spirit-given wisdom, not to mention the help of other godly members of the church and those called to teach the Scriptures. In short, becoming a skilled peacemaker takes work! And that work often includes the pain of faltering along the way.

Still, instead of being discouraged by the thought of needing such extensive wisdom, we can be encouraged that God’s Word is sufficient to make us wise (Ps. 19:7–9) and his Spirit is present and active to lead us into all truth (1 John 2:27). Indeed, Jesus said, “Blessed are the peacemakers, because they will be called the sons of God” (Matt. 5:9). Providentially, the way God makes us look like our Father in heaven is by learning how to make peace with other sinners. Looking the Son and his sacrifice, we become skilled at addressing sin—first ours and then others, too!

Knowing that such sin will come, however, we must also remember that when God ordains sin to afflict us, the Spirit of Truth is also present to lead us from death to life, from falsehood to true, and from sin to forgiveness. If you are indwelt by the Spirit, God will give you a desire to make peace with others. And by that same Spirit, he equips the members of his church to do just that.

Again, even as we falter in this process and even as divisions remain, all those who are led by the Spirit will come to a greater knowledge of the truth—truth that will ultimately bring peace, whether in this age of the age to come. And so, in this progress of sanctification, we can and should rejoice in learning how to hold truth, extend grace, seek forgiveness, evaluate repentance, and enjoy reconciliation. This is what it means to be a peacemaker and a child of God.

To that end, let us continue to look to Jesus to learn what it means to be a peacemaker. And along the way, let’s consider on the words of Calvin, as they will help us bring into the present the wisdom of the past.

Soli Deo Gloria, ds

Photo by Alex Shute on Unsplash

********

Calvin on Forgiveness

In his commentary on Gospels,[2] John Calvin writes concerning Peter’s question in Matthew 18:21, “Lord, how often shall my brother offend against me?”

Peter made this objection according to the natural feelings and disposition of the flesh. It is natural to all men to wish to be forgiven; and, therefore, if any man does not immediately obtain forgiveness, he complains that he is treated with sternness and cruelty. But those who demand to be treated gently are far from being equally gentle towards others; and therefore, when our Lord exhorted his disciples to meekness, this doubt occurred to Peter: “If we be so strongly disposed to grant forgiveness, what will be the consequence, but that our lenity shall be an inducement to offend?”¹ He asks, therefore, if it be proper frequently to forgive offenders; for, since the number seven is taken for a large number, the force of the adverb, (ἑπτάκις,) seven times, is the same as if he had said, “How long, Lord, dost thou wish that offenders be received into favour? for it is unreasonable, and by no means advantageous, that they should, in every case, find us willing to be reconciled.” But Christ is so far from yielding to this objection, that he expressly declares that there ought to be no limit to forgiving;¹ for he did not intend to lay down a fixed number, but rather to enjoin us never to become wearied.

Luke differs somewhat from Matthew; for he states the command of Christ to be simply, that we should be prepared to forgive seven times; but the meaning is the same, that we ought to be ready and prepared to grant forgiveness not once or twice, but as often as the sinner shall repent. There is only this difference between them, that, according to Matthew, our Lord, in reproving Peter for taking too limited a view, employs hyperbolically a larger number, which of itself is sufficient to point out the substance of what is intended. For when Peter asked if he should forgive seven times, it was not because he did not choose to go any farther, but, by presenting the appearance of a great absurdity, to withdraw Christ from his opinion, as I have lately hinted. So then he who shall be prepared to forgive seven times will be willing to be reconciled as far as to the seventieth offence.

But the words of Luke give rise to another question; for Christ does not order us to grant forgiveness, till the offender turn to us and give evidence of repentance.² I reply, there are two ways in which offences are forgiven. If a man shall do me an injury, and I, laying aside the desire of revenge, do not cease to love him, but even repay kindness in place of injury, though I entertain an unfavourable opinion of him, as he deserves, still I am said to forgive him. For when God commands us to wish well to our enemies, He does not therefore demand that we approve in them what He condemns, but only desires that our minds shall be purified from all hatred. In this kind of pardon, so far are we from having any right to wait till he who has offended shall return of his own accord to be reconciled to us, that we ought to love those who deliberately provoke us, who spurn reconciliation, and add to the load of former offences.

A second kind of forgiving is, when we receive a brother into favour, so as to think favourably respecting him, and to be convinced that the remembrance of his offence is blotted out in the sight of God. And this is what I have formerly remarked, that in this passage Christ does not speak only of injuries which have been done to us, but of every kind of offences; for he desires that, by our compassion, we shall raise up those who have fallen. This doctrine is very necessary, because naturally almost all of us are peevish beyond measure; and Satan, under the pretence of severity, drives us to cruel rigour, so that wretched men, to whom pardon is refused, are swallowed up by grief and despair.

But here another question arises. As soon as a man by words makes profession of repentance, are we bound to believe him? Were this done, we must of necessity go willingly and knowingly into mistake; for where will be discretion, if any man may freely impose on us, even to the hundredth offence?

I answer, first, the discourse relates here to daily faults, in which every man, even the best, needs forgiveness. Since, then, amidst such infirmity of the flesh, our road is so slippery, and snares and attacks so numerous, what will be the consequence if, at the second or third fall, the hope of forgiveness is cut off?

We must add, secondly, that Christ does not deprive believers of the exercise of judgment, so as to yield a foolish readiness of belief to every slight expression, but only desires us to be so candid and merciful, as to stretch out the hand to offenders, provided there be evidence that they are sincerely dissatisfied with their sins. For repentance is a sacred thing, and therefore needs careful examination; but as soon as the offender gives probable evidence of conversion, Christ desires that he shall be admitted to reconciliation, lest, on being repulsed, he lose courage and fall back.

Thirdly, It must be observed that, when any man, through his light and unsteady behaviour, has exposed himself to suspicion, we may grant pardon when he asks it, and yet may do so in such a manner as to watch over his conduct for the future, that our forbearance and meekness, which proceed from the Spirit of Christ, may not become the subject of his ridicule. For we must observe the design of our Lord himself, that we ought, by our gentleness, to assist those who have fallen to rise again. And certainly we ought to imitate the goodness of our heavenly Father, who meets sinners at a distance to invite them to salvation. Besides, as repentance is a wonderful work of the Spirit, and is the creation of the new man, if we despise it, we offer an insult to God himself.

_______

[1] Robert P. Jones, Pursuing Peace: A Christian Guide to Handling Our Conflicts (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 196–97.

[2] John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Luke, vol. 2 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 363–366.