Jesus vs. Paul?

Misunderstood Verses #2

Matthew 6:14-15: For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. ~ Jesus

Ephesians 4:32: And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you. ~ Paul

Recently I've become aware of a teaching that proposes that Jesus and Paul are at odds in these two statements. They say that Jesus says our forgiveness (which has to mean our salvation, since no one I'm aware of teaches one can be partially forgiven and go to heaven) is based on our forgiveness of others - that is our performance. Paul tells us that we forgive others because of how completely God has forgiven us.

The resolution they provide seems simple enough: Jesus was talking about a different era in God's redemptive history. Before the cross, before the resurrection, before Pentecost, whenever, God dealt with people on the basis of their performance. But now God deals with us based on Christ's all-sufficient work on the cross. It sounds plausible, because Hebrews tells us about the new and living way we have in Christ. But some (not all) who teach this are overzealous for the new and living way. In their exuberance they overlook a God who has always shown mankind mercy and grace.

If Jesus was saying that there was a time (obviously it had to include the time that Jesus was speaking) that God's forgiveness was conditional on our action, then that must mean no one from that era will be in heaven. I don't think I need to post any references to the fact that man can in no way earn God's favor, since if you've read this far you are interested enough in Scripture to understand that. God's grace has never been in this time or any other time based on man's performance.

To de-emphasize God's grace in previous times is to do injustice to our unchanging God and the great heroes of the Old Testament. Genesis 15:6 tells us, "He (Abraham) believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness." Three times in the New Testament (here, here and here) this verse is quoted as an illustration of the way we all must come to God. I'm thankful for the more complete revelation we have in Christ, but all God ever required, requires now and will ever require is belief in him.

So if Jesus was not saying that forgiveness is based on our performance, what did he mean? And how are Jesus' and Paul's statements rectified? To me it seems simple, because the key is in another verse in Ephesians: "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them." (2:10) If we as believers are ordained by God to walk in good works, is it not reasonable to assume that forgiveness will be one of those good works? And if so, then truly one who can never find it in their heart to forgive their fellow human knows nothing of the love, mercy and forgiveness of God.

We as believers will fail to forgive one another completely. If we wouldn't, why would Paul need to encourage us to forgive in the second verse above? We certainly deal with the works of the flesh in our hearts and lives. But we are just as certainly on the road to being the people God wants us to be. God promises to work in our lives to bring us farther on that road, but the journey won't be complete till we get to heaven.

The New F-Word?

This will be the first in a series of articles about verses that I think have been misapplied down through the years.

Misunderstood Verses #1

Matthew 5:22: And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.

For most of my life, I've heard this verse explained to mean that Jesus does not want us to use the word "fool" to describe someone. I suppose that's not the best thing to say to a person, but I believe Jesus had a much deeper and more profound message than just that. If you think Jesus was adding another four-letter word to the list that nice people don't say, then you are missing the point.

I'm told the Aramaic (the dialect of Hebrew spoken in Palestine during Jesus' time) word "raca" means "empty-headed." Seems to me that's not much different than "fool." But you could be brought to the council for saying one and not the other. Why bring someone who uses one insult before the council and not another? The logical assumption is that "raca" was a profanity in Jesus' day.

Photo Credit

Every society has profanities - words, gestures, etc. They vary from culture to culture. My dad served a tour of duty in Vietnam with the Marines. He never did and still doesn't talk about very much of what he experienced there, but one thing I remember him talking about was the fact that an innocent-looking (to Americans) "come here" gesture was a vile profanity in Vietnam. One of the things they trained foreign soldiers before they arrived in Vietnam was to not use that particular gesture.

Profanities are a part of the human experience. Whether that's a good or bad thing, I'm not quite sure, but the fact remains every society has them. In Jesus' day, one of the worst things you could say was "raca." It was apparently so bad that even saying it in public would get you sent before the religious authorities. The religious authorities in Jesus' day had limited but real power. They couldn't criminally punish, but they could embarrass people in front of the community in a way that kept most people in line with Jewish customs.

What kind of words are so bad that Jesus would say they are worse than cuss words? Very simple: words that hurt and leave a lasting impression on their victims. It might not be pleasant, but think back: every one of us can remember something someone said that cut us to the core like a knife. Maybe it was a classmate or group of classmates at school. Maybe a coworker or a boss. Sadly for some folks it might be something a teacher or even their parents said. I could be wrong, but I'd be willing to guess the person who said memorably hurtful things to you didn't use a string of four-letter words. Even if they did, it wasn't the cuss words that hurt you nearly as much as what they were saying beyond those words.

This, I believe, is the point Jesus was making here. The religious authorities of Jesus' day (and lots of people today) thought saying swear words was the worst sin you could commit with your mouth. As long as they didn't say those words, they thought they were doing pretty good. But Jesus said real sin goes a lot deeper than that. Words spoken in anger, pride and condescension can do lasting damage to people, regardless of whether there are cuss words thrown in or not.

I'm not saying you ought to go around cussing a blue streak. Jesus didn't say the council was wrong for punishing people who swore. What Jesus was warning against was the attitude that says as long as I'm not saying the words on somebody's naughty list then whatever I want to say is fine. It's not fine. Paul said that our words should "impart grace" to those who hear them. That should be the ideal that you and I should strive for: to be the kind of people whose words bring encouragement and grace to others.