Coptic Youth 4 Holy Book I wrote this article as a draft long ago as I started to talk and deliver sermons on. I find it suitable for this 'discussion board' to add such a basic correction for this insinuated misconception of forgiveness. Here u r, guys:


FORGIVENESS
CHRISTIAN PROPER USE
VS.
COMMON Hear-Believe MISUSE
WTH
A COPTIC FLAVOR OF SELF-CRITICISM


Still Draft!
Under Revision of Text Proofing,
Wanting Introductory Abstract and Indexing.

If not otherwise explicitly mentioned, all Biblical reference, are taken from MKJV.



I once thought that going off the limits of the forgiveness commandment is a Copts’ “trade mark”. I was wrong. Few days ago I listened to a typical famous preacher in one of those 1-800- programs saying a stereotype with a clever thorough tone “Love your enemies; forgive em.” Love your enemies is true. I can find it in Mat5:44. Forgive them, nay. I could not look it up in the whole Bible.
“Oh, you know letter kills; Maybe it is there implicit,” you folk say, I know I know how you Copts get round things you do not like. But on the contrary of your wishful thinking, what is implicit and explicit as well and goes consistent in the whole well organized body of the Christian biblical doctrine is that forgiveness is conditional. The condition is the confession of the wrong doer to his wrong, and his serious asking for repentance. One is theologically and logically, biblically and spiritually NOT asked to forgive others without others meet this condition. Repentance is a key and necessary factor for forgiveness.
The evidences abound…

Amnesty and Comprehensive Forgiveness!
First let us differentiate between forgiveness when it merely means amnesty, and ‘forgiveness’ in the ultimate comprehensive sense.
Amnesty is not to apply punishment, while the whole ‘forgiveness’ we mean in our lecture is not to consider the wrongdoer condemned anymore.

Now let us count up to ten 

“Forgive us our debts AS we also forgive our debtors.” (Mat 6:12.)
So, human forgiveness is like, based on, and after the example of God’s forgiveness. God’s forgiveness is activated by man’s repentance. A fact goes unneeded for quotations or arguing for.
The same applies for (Eph4:32), “And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.”
It is explicit, even further, that Paul addresses believers who must have repented before receiving the holy baptism.

“And if he trespasses against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day TURNS AGAINT TO YOU, SAYING, I REPENT, you shall forgive him.” (Luk17:4.)
Commenting would be act of redundancy!

The same saying, as found in Mathew is obviously related:
“Then Peter came to Him and said, Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Until seven times? Jesus said to him, I do not say to you, until seven times; but, until seventy times seven.” (Mat 18:21-22.)
True, in this location, there is no explicit mentioning of repentance nor asking for forgiveness from the wrongdoer brother, but three overwhelming factors stand here:
-First, the text is repeated in Luke with explicit stating of what the wrongdoer is assumed to do for them to receive forgiveness. It is to be noted here that Mathew, a Hebrew, wrote with eye on making short sentences to keep the oriental stylistic flavor of prose, while Luke was keen to record details. These are characteristic facts related respectively to both evangelists.
-Secondly, Jesus added on immediately a parable with a clear inclusion of our condition. (See the evidence after next.)
-Thirdly, Mathew records the saying of Jesus as an answer given to the question of Peter which was incited by the previous saying of Jesus. What did Jesus say? He just gave more evidence for our case:
“But if your brother shall trespass against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear you, take one or two more with you, so that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he neglects to hear the church, let him be to you as a heathen and a tax-collector.” (Mat 18:15-17.)
So the wrong doer is assumed to have heard before he is to be forgiven. The rest makes it more consistent with our case.

Also after the saying of our interest that Jesus gave to Peter’s question, He went on assuring our case with the known parable of the unforgiving servant:

“…But the same servant went out and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii. And he laid hands on him and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me what you owe. Ad his fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying, Have patience with me and I will pay you all. And he would not, ….” (Mat 18:28-30.)
It is again apparent that the unforgiving servant is not that one who the folk sense judge as merciless unforgiving person, but rather he is a real merciless person who shunned the begging (symbol for repentance and forgiveness asking) of his fellow servant. He surely deserved the condemnation and to be deprived of the forgiveness of God as well as he is surely not the one to analogize to someone waiting for the wrong doer confession so that he might forgive.
Herein, we have reached the epic of the line of evidence, and it is time to ask the key question: why do we fail to read how Jesus made it prominent that the fellow indebted servant begged his debtor? Even Jesus described with vivid extra-impressive words how the unforgiving servant was merciless, and again we fail to notice! Why is that? Is it because we like and intend to fail to apologize for our mistakes and ask for easy free forgiveness from those we do harm to? My answer is probably yes and probably because we are brain washed by the fake doctrines assumed wrongly to be Biblical. Both probable reasons are catastrophic. By then we have enough direct gospel evidences.


Yet, there seemingly is an absolute commandment of forgiveness. We meet in (Luk6:36-37) this parallels:


“Therefore be merciful, even as your Father is merciful. Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.” (Luk6:37)

First, one notices the literary style of this piece of prose, that is parallelism, which justifies omitting any stuffing or sophistication of the sentences, leaving grasping the implied conditions to the wits of the listener. The implied condition of each case is safely clear in the rigorous context of the whole bible as shown so far.

Moreover, the parallelism between both levels of forgiveness, God for men and men for one another shows an implied, yet clear obvious condition. Simply speaking, if forgiveness for others is given unconditionally, without regret or apology, it leads to the same with being forgiven by God. Such divine forgiveness is not there without repentance.

If God’s forgiveness is under condition, giving our own forgiveness absolutely blindly makes us out to be more forgiving than God, God forbid!


What then? This takes us directly to the most frequent and most important supplication we offer. That in the Lord’s Prayer you know:

Forgive us our trespasses AS we forgive those who trespass against us!
Here the condition is almost explicit. As we forgive AS god forgives. We follow an example, i.e. God’s one.
The question now becomes how God forgives so that we forgive AS He does? God, unanimously agreed, forgives for the repentant and those who ask for His forgiveness. He may cover us, but to forgive us it takes our repentance and asking for forgiveness. This is natural condition not arbitrary one. The argument that ‘Condition imposing is against god’s kindness and suggesting sadist propensity,’ is clumsy here. Indeed, it is the fair and valid forgiveness’ nature that encourages, even necessitates the asking of it.


It has been a straightforward clear job so far as here is forgiveness mentioned and here as well is the necessary condition mentioned just next to it.

So Far it is, only from Jesus' sayings, well proved that forgiveness is to be given under the obvious condition of confession. Forgiveness is not an initiative but only given in return for asking for it.
I see most of us are well convinced, even baffled by the effect of the way we used to think about it, but…

Is it not being said, “We thank You … because You have covered us.” (Thanksgiving Prayer)

To make it as well-balanced as well-proved, I raise the question of ‘covering:’
For do not really we say in the introduction of our every prayer, liturgical as well as personal: "Let us give thanks unto the beneficent and merciful God the father for He has covered us." again, "We thank you ... for you have covered us..." Do not we pray always like that? Or aint we? (Laughter.)

Does not the principle of covering the sins of others contradict with the necessity of the others’ confession to us which sometimes needs us to take the initiative of blame? Especially it contradicts with the complaint to friends? Most blatantly it does not go with reporting the mistake to the church!
How come Jesus, who Himself our coverer when we do wrong to Himself (all sins are against God the Father of Jesus and against Jesus, command us to go uncover others who do wrong to us?
Is it we cover and ignore the mistakes sins trespasses or whatever of others against us or to blame them on?!
We need first to distinguish between coverage (atonement) and forgiveness. We need further to distinguish between one trespass and another, one sin and another (not to go to literal hassles of distinguishing between trespass and sin.) We need to make spiritual biblical reasoning, so let us reason with mind and spirit:

There is a meaningful distinction between forgiveness and atonement; for the atonement of sin "covers" it, while forgiveness "erases" it entirely. SO the saying goes "When God forgives He forgets", but we, humans, forget and remember, we go back and forth on that. However, it is different with God. For when He forgets a sin, He does not remember it any longer.
Why is that? Because it will be existent no longer, because it is forgiven, that is erased. Go to (Isa43:25, also Heb8:12, again Heb10:17) to be sure it is not my own opinion.
On the other hand, atonement means merely covering. Linguistically speaking, to atone is to cover, for the original Hebrew word is "kfr" which means cover. (B.T.W, the apparent phonetic likeness is a clue that the English word is derived from the original Semitic root "kfr.")
So, to cover something is to leave it existent anyway, which is not God’s purpose by all means. It is only an act of “economia,” a tactic as a manner of speaking we may say.
But forgiveness is a very purpose, of God toward us and consequently, of us toward each other. If something is forgiven, covering it will be meaningless because it will, in essence, be not there in the first place.

Let us see the differences between forgiveness and coverage theologically in biblical depth:

In the whole Old Testament, the main line was the "atoning" (covering) of sins, a way for God to keep patient with the existence of sins is to cover it from His eyes.
Now in the New Testament, Jesus came to advance atonement, and realize forgiveness.
He covered sins with his blood (advancing the atonement process from symbolic one to real effective one, for it is covering by as stronger the blood of Jesus than the blood of goats and calves (see Heb8:9, 10:4 and 10:11),
He, furthermore, offered man the credit for forgiveness.
We are covered until we repent, so that by this repentance we receive forgiveness. When forgiven, our sins are no longer, they just vanish.
So, to be forgiven we need to repent. And now having repented, it is a matter of human nature that we tend to confess our wrong deeds.

There are two major stories in the gospels that got mistaken with each other, or at least the slight difference between them goes unnoticed by many.
These are the story of the sinful woman (Luk7,) and that of the woman caught in the very act of adultery (joh8.)
In the former, Jesus declared forgiveness, while in the latter He did not (unlike the hearsay and the outgoing assuming talk.)
The difference in Jesus' judgment is due simply to the difference of acts of both women. The repenting sinner of Luk7, simply speaking, repented and came unto taking all the risk of facing the fanatic Pharisees, and being harassed by the people around, just to confess sin and declare repentance not by words but by tears and deeds. On the other hand, the latter woman was caught in the act but did not show up before Jesus on account of repentance.
Yet Jesus rendered her a largess of another chance and paid her an invitation to repentance.
Please note here carefully that Jesus blocked her instant condemnation but not forgave her. Jesus’ love took the shape of stopping judgment for making way of repentance to act. He offered her invitation, encouragement, time and chance for her to repent.
You know what, God did not have her covered, He meant to leave her exposed by the cruel men (who probably planned to have her sin and then be caught.) God meant to let her be uncovered for He meant to have a meeting with her. Again, covering is a mere “economia” that if it did not work, other disposals (“economia”) work instead.

However, the way of forgiveness is always pro-coverage:
+If the wrongdoer comes upon his own, forgiving them in itself includes coverage. For when one forgives, they cover by erasing entirely from the memory (when I forgiver I forget.)
+If the wrongdoer keeps lazy in recognizing their wrongdoing, I ask for the mediation of a friend or two. It is not a scandal as it keeps contained in such a close intimate circle.
+Finally, “the church” means an official who represents the church, and again if it takes a wide circle of the church members, this is to be resorted to only when coverage strategy fails with the wrongdoer and they (the wrongdoers) are responsible. When the wrongdoer refuses to listen to the church, he is commanded to be counted like pagans and tax collectors. Again this does not mean to hate them. It rather means to treat with them as a brother who does not accept the Christian law and is expected not to behave after it. This very one is to be loved as such. But he is not to be dealt as a Christian brother because they themselves refuse to be dealt as such. The wrongdoer who refuses to listen to the complaint against his trespasses against others is responsible of reaching the end of the way.
+ But even though, the end of the way is not a dead end. Because forgiveness stems from love, it never fails, and the repentance gate is open. Once the wrongdoer is back he is restored from the position of a pagan to that of a brother and more than that. In accepting repentance by forgiveness, coverage is included better off than before.

It is time now to contrast forgiveness versus atonement (coverage) in short sentences, with kind of simplification:

*Atonement hides sins tactically, while forgiveness hides sins permanently way.
*Atonement hides by covering, while forgiveness hides by erasing.
*Atonement is a mean and forgiveness is end.
*Atonement is strategy while forgiveness is the very objective and purpose.
*The one who is pro forgiveness is then pro coverage.
*If coverage fails, let the aptitude to forgiveness never fail.


But why does coverage fail? This is another story of practical considerations. It is beyond the tight limits here. It takes us to distinguish between one sin and another, one trespass and another; between the concept of sin and that of trespass also, when sin is only a trespass, and when it is more serious than that.
The discussion however leads us to how the church (not mere individuals) is to deal with serious sins and how she bestows forgiveness. Coming soon:


(1Co 5) to be coupled with (2Co2)
On dealing with the carelessness about wrongdoing the apostle says: “Put out from you the evil one.” (1Co 5:18,) but on the same sinner’s repentance the apostle says again: “I beseech you to confirm your love toward him.” (2Co 2:8.)
Compare the strictness of the apostle in his decisive excommunicating the wrong doer with his being no less strict in beseeching the brothers to confirm love to the repentant. The wrong doer and the repentant being the same very person makes the Christian doctrine of the highest integrity. That is how Christians should treat wrong doers. That is the difficult equation put practically into effect. We err either way and we ought to be back on track.
Yes the effects are at peaks of each case, the common trespasses dealt with in the sayings of Jesus, and the abomination sin of the Corinthian sinner. Yes they are not to be dealt equally. But yet they are similar even if not equal. Any member of the Church indeed by their sins trespasses against her chastity, dignity and reputation.
Yes there is a difference between an individual trespass against another individual, and a serious sin against the church, but yet, the analogy stands, much the way it stands between the whole church as one body in herself and the individual Christian. The sin/trespass is to be forgiven in the case of repentance. It is to be blamed in the case of ignorance/heart-hardness. Failing in either is strange from the scripture.
This concept again makes it clear that the spiritual Christian doctrines in Bible are self consistent and of organic interrelationship. In the gospels we saw the one believer is commanded to love his trespassing brother, but the same believer is not to forgive before receiving true apology. Here also, the church loved the sinner but did not offer forgiveness before he repented.

By the way of “love does not necessarily mean forgiveness” which sounds a stunning paradox, I know, it is time now to balance the true valid doctrine of forgiveness with the other related true valid doctrine of love:


“Love your enemies” (Mat 5:44)

Love goes almost always unconditional because God is love, and ought to be like Him. True, we should not love God’s enemies, but the accurate point is that we do not know, being non-omniscient humans, who is and is not unless either one gets inspired or Bible tells about someone. But as for our own enemies, one should show more love to, so that they may turn out to be good and may love help reveal that, who knows, but God? Just because one is enemy to another does not mean necessarily that this one if enemy to God. Then, we faithfully show God’s love to all around with the specific exceptions who are known to be refused from the divine election.

But love is expressed in acts which vary according to the object of love. The acts of love vary because the objects of love vary in needs and situations. For example Jesus surely loved the Pharisees when He rebuked them, as He loved John when He had him reclining against His chest.

Love is then the unconditional origin of every virtue, while forgiveness is one branch.

Love is ready and willing to forgive. But to forgive indeed is dependent on how the object of love acts. When they go wrong, they never fail from the Christian one’s love, but their wrongdoing block forgiveness. When they come back (with real acknowledging of wrong) they will be forgiven (because lover which never fails is there ready for forgiveness, willing to giving it even aspiring for that.)

I think by now the confusion between love and forgiveness must have got resolved.


The remaining challenge, as it apparently sounds, is the Lord’s overwhelming saying:

“And Jesus said, Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.” (Luk23:24)

It is noted first that there is a clear condition Jesus declares: “they do not know.”

It goes without argument that some people do not gain from this transcendental intercession from the Son to the Father. Caiaphas, to begin with, will not benefit from it, for even if he did not know the real identity of Jesus, but at least he knew he was condemning an innocent man, even the most righteous one of his generation. Pilate neither did benefit from this highest intercession of Jesus, because he knew he was judging against justice. Even with this unprecedented forgiveness, it does not mean all.

Who then Jesus asked forgiveness from His Father for? The Roman soldiers were mainly and contextually meant, for they did not know whom they were crucifying, besides they were on duty. Some of the passers-by who were cursing Jesus might have benefitted from Jesus’ saying, because they knew only he was a blasphemer. They went blindly after their high priest.

So even with the highest forgiveness supplication, forgiveness is yet limited and under condition. And it is for a special reason…

…If the reason is grasped, the most holy saying will not be misused in our context: The only begotten Son of god the Father, the son of His love, was being crucified and blasphemed against. Which human father could keep silent in such a situation? How rather the heavenly Father? Jesus here was standing between his crucifiers and the wrath of His Father. He was in essence interceding for the cross, for the crucifixion to be on as planned in the divine purpose. From another point of view, He was declaring that the cross was hard on the heart of the Father as it is on himself, because He and the Father have the same feeling and thought and exchange the same love. The Father was not simply happy for the cross. On one hand He asked for man’s salvation, but on both hands He did not like that to happen to His only begotten Son. The situation of the Father was alike that of the Son. It is the “dilemma”, in a manner of speaking, of the cross reflected on the Father and declared in this Lord’s saying, much the way the same “dilemma” the Son went through and declared from His point of view in Gethsemane. The scope is tight and it would be off limits to elaborate more on this deep serious point in this word (article). However, this short paragraph is enough for our purpose: “Jesus was rendering the very cross He was hanging on His intercession by asking His Father to cover His face with forgiveness off the crucifiers.

Now, the last saying of Stephen is enough to be understood as a repetition of Jesus’ saying. These are the words of Stephen:
“And kneeling down, he cried with a loud voice, Lord, do not lay this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep. And Saul was consenting to his death.” (Act7:60, 8:1.)
Notice for now the immediate mentioning of Saul of Tarsus textually and in the actual context of the event. This will help soon. Apart from the peculiar side of the meaning of Jesus’ saying, Stephen, as a quick apprentice learner, obviously was repeating after his Master the asking of forgiveness for his stoners because they were doing that in fanatic ignorance.
How can we know for certain that the only excuse the stoners of Stephen had was ignorance, while Stephen himself did not say that? First, this part that goes implicit in the saying of Stephen is stated explicitly in that of Jesus. It is obvious that what Stephen said was in a virtual context of that of Jesus.
Second, One famous character was there standing as an accomplice of this crime. When the blood of Jesus’ martyr Stephen was poured out, he also was standing by and consenting to his death, and holding the garments of those who killed him. This one person we believe, and know that his testimony is trustworthy. This one, Saul of Tarsus you know, said:

“Who before was a blasphemer and a persecutor and insolent. But I obtained mercy, because being ignorant, I did it in unbelief.” (1Ti 1:13)

Still there is a peculiar consideration regarding Stephen's position, for Stephen knew that pouring innocent blood causes fearful vengeance from God (cf. 2Sa21:1-9, Psa51:14 and lots of like verses) which meant to him the generation might be cut off the chance to believe in the then newly born church, eradicating any chance for next generations of Jewish people. Sterphen being after all Jewish and no less zeal than Paul (Rom9:3, 10:1, 11:1) thought of interceding for his kins.
So it is fairly enough convincing from all viewpoints that the Saying of Stephen do not set forth a teaching of forgiving wrongdoers unconditionally.
One brilliant argument is yet there: If ignorance excuses sins and trespasses, why do not we assume that the wrongdoers against us are ignorant of the harm they cause us, out of love which…

“… thinks no evil” (1Co 13:5.)

Good question, seemingly, why, really, do not we put love in effect and assume ignorance and find global excuse of all wrongdoers and live the serene life of perpetual forgiveness? I would have given my vote for this “Fabian” idea unless…

… what if one knows that the wrongdoers know they do harm? Should the one, done wrong to, keep going in fake ignorance about it? Or should the excuse-finder better go back on track of this article?

To make the excuse finders’ situation worse, I say, not I but the Lord does, that even if the wrongdoers are really not aware of their being harming others by their trespasses, it is the duty of the one being trespassed against to take the initiative and let them know. I say the Lord says:

“But if your brother shall trespass against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother.” (Mat 18:15.)

Yes, it is the holy duty of the Christian one not to leave their brothers in their wrongdoing. The ones trespassed against come first in line to tell those who do faults, for their being the closer to the fault, and according to the Lord’s commandment. When I tell my brother he is at fault I am not unforgiving. On the contrary, I am acting properly in love, obedience and understanding of God’s teaching. When I fail to do that, however I dignify my failure by the twisted concept of forgiveness, I am then in error because ‘I do not know the scriptures or the power of God.’ with forgiveness off the crucifiers.

Joseph Joseph! Let us try one more challenge before it is over.
Let us go back before all these examples discussed so far, and recall the example of Joseph. What about Joseph’s forgiveness for his brutal brothers?
“And Joseph said unto them, Fear not: for am I in the place of God? But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive. Now therefore fear ye not: I will nourish you, and your little ones. And he comforted them, and spake kindly unto them.” (KJV: Gen50:19-21)


Joseph forgiveness only occurred at their explicit repentance. (Gen50:17-19).

As for those whose repentance was only out of fear, the forgiveness was a mere amnesty. Even see this:”Fear not: for am I in the place of God?” What does Joseph say here? He says: Punishment is God’s. He was giving an amnesty message to his fearing brothers. Amnesty was given by himself not by God. He left the punishment up to God! As if he was preceding the law as saying, “To me belongeth vengeance, and recompence” (KJV: Deu32:35). Why not? Aint he Joseph the seer?  Later Paul quoted the same scripture as well, “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord” (Rom12:19).



Hey, before this paragraph is left, pay attention in a humeorus yet true sense! Joseph did not say: “May the Lord forgive you” but, “Am I in the place of god?” that is to say you may not fear from my revenge, but you would rather watch out for God’s avenge.



Now, Case Closed.


I could scarcely hear someone over there saying “Rabbena ysam7ak, may the Lord forgive you, you changed the way our heads were organized.

Let us now round off by collecting in one paragraph the wisdom behind this consistent concept of Christian forgiveness:

If one is to forgive trespassers against themselves without the trespassers asking for it, well, count with me the problems resulting:

-So the one who forgives is more forgiving than God, God forbid! God Himself forgives only for sinners who repent!

-So one who goes after that false doctrine will be at odds with the simple and straightforward logic of any civic law. Law, with such a wrong concept of forgiveness, will be against God if God asked for absolute forgiveness. One may argue that we follow God but not earthly law, but actually the principles of human laws are originated primarily in the natural conscience of man which is the creature of the very God.

-So most people who fail obviously to forgive without apology, would be left conscience stricken as being surrounded by a fake teaching whipping them all the way and all the time by resounding, “You should forgive. You should have forgiven. Why did you fail to forgive?” This kind of conscience is functioning wrongly because it goes after self-righteous hearsay assumed spiritual laws.

-So such a one with this misconception of absolute forgiveness would keep the wrongdoers in their wrongdoing. Such a one would be virtually encouraging the wrongdoers to do more of wrongdoing and trespasses. The absolute forgiveness would helps the wrongdoers to justify themselves and perhaps, why not, to repeat their trespasses against others. So, such a silent one giving blind absolute forgiveness would essentially be violating the commandment of loving neighbor.

-Let alone having trouble with many passages in the bible that goes against the wrong idea, that wrong idea of unconditional one-sided forgiveness causes these natural, psychological, theological and logical disturbances. -Ignorance justifies forgiveness. Weakness needs blame and if admitted then forgiveness applies. But failing to admit the wrongdoing in itself in the first place recalls for forgiveness blocking. Otherwise the Christian community would grow obviously invalid, if the wrongdoing always passes forgiven.

-Love never fails. But forgiveness is not to be given to those who fail in love. God loves the whole world, but some will fail from his unfailing love, and they will be sent away. For us to go pro God’s love, we are to give our forgiveness in the same way God does to offer saving message by offering true testimony that makes sense.

-In other words, love is a constant that varies in shape and expressed in different ways according to the subject and the object, for with Pharisees Jesus’ love took the shape of warning them by solemn woes (Mat23), also with the woman caught in the very act of sin (Joh8) love took the shape of His blocking of condemnation (but not forgiving her) and offering invitation, encouragement, time and chance for her to repent, while with the already repentant woman (Luk7) love took the sweetest and best shape which is FORGIVENESS. Let the reader understand!

-One of the most serious causes of immaturity in our Coptic communities is that we make up laws upon our own that sound “too” good as if we go further better than God, God forbid, then we fail to follow them but rudely enough we ask others to follow. It is one of the funniest examples of rudeness to trespass against others and blame them on not forgiving us (Laughter.)

I am done. Forgive me you good folk for stunning you!



P. eng Basil Lamie, aka C. Mark, Reston 2003 (Later Dn. Basil, Virgin Mary Convent).
(Has been later delivered and discussed in few churches)


Word Version available at Mediafire, http://www.mediafire.com/view/6nvo3jd5dbbq4vo/e_hb_cm_forgiveness.docx =========================





To be included in
“Common Mistakes”, “Difficult Verses”, “Biblical Exegeses” and “Contemporary Criticism”

Related Articles:
The Other Cheek
Do Not Judge But Judge Who Do Not Judge!
Anathema
Confession bet. Bible and Status Que.

In Christ,
C. Mark.