Steal no More
Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth (Ephesians 4:28).
According to Ephesians 4:28 above, forgiveness frees the trespasser from past deeds, not from future sins, therefore “him that stole” (in the past) is admonished to not fall back into the former ways; he is admonished to “steal no more” in the future. Note: If the past forgiveness covered also for future sins, that caution would have been unnecessary. If future trespasses counted nothing at all because of a past forgiveness, then the Apostle had been wasting words by admonishing the forgiven thief to not continue in the old ways. For those who will hear, Apostle Paul was making the point that grace may forgive the past, but it does not also cover for future faults.
Also note the word “labour” in that exhortation. Maintaining the state of forgiveness could sometimes be conscious hard labour. If I used to be a drunk before grace saved me from the alcohol joint, I must not take ‘grace’ for granted but work on myself to not visit such places carelessly, thus opening up to temptation. If I used to have a weakness with sexual promiscuity, it behoves me to ‘labour’ on myself to not put myself in those tempting paths. If I have a weakness with temper, which I have often blamed on everybody else, I should acknowledge that weakness and put deliberate deterrents in my way. In all cases, maintaining the new boundaries could truly be labour. In summary, sustaining or maintaining forgiveness could involve:
- giving to others the same forgiveness that one has received,
- working on oneself (or labouring) to not repeat the lifestyle that brings or brought about the initial offence(s) and repercussions,
- respecting the mutual ‘terms’ of the forgiveness, even where those ‘terms’ might not have been explicitly read out like a riot act.
Merciless Pharisees
Sometimes, worse sinners are more scrupulous about other people’s ‘unpardonable’ atrocities. I had to politely intervene at church one day. A woman I knew very well, was being holily nasty about a girl whom she thought had had an abortion. It was not just a condemnation of sin, it was an unpleasant attitude that seemed to have been announcing publicly, “O thou filthy sinner, beware of hell fire!” as if she were the gatekeeper of Hell. Meanwhile, she herself had been a notorious ‘campus girl’ who had had her share of abortions that, luckily for her, not many (if any) in that distant congregation knew about. How dare she then engage someone else’s present as if she had had no past herself? If she had been more mindful in her attitude toward that other person, she would not be provoking a reminder of her own ugly past; if she had been more compassionate in addressing other people’s failures, she might have been a more useful high priest, according to Hebrews 5:1-3:
1 Every high priest selected to represent men and women before God and offer sacrifices for their sins 2 should be able to deal gently with their failings, since he knows what it’s like from his own experience. 3 But that also means that he has to offer sacrifices for his own sins as well as the people’s (Hebrews 5:1-2, The Message Bible).
This high priest, whom God highly recommends in spite of his own past failings, is “ABLE to deal gently with” others that he finds in the vices that used to hold him captive. That is ability gained from own weaknesses. He is gentle with them not because he condones their vices but because he humbly realises that “he himself is subject to the same weaknesses,” according to the New Living Translation. In other words, he is able to ‘give’ to others the ‘forgiveness’ that he himself has received.
Unlike this high priest, some are very loud and proud in condemning the battles in other people’s lives, battles that they themselves have never faced or never won. True high priests are not haughty but humbled by their own trials and triumphs and, sometimes, even their shameful and unspeakable failings.
When people treat other transgressors as if they themselves were never sinners, they invoke the image of the unmerciful servant in Matthew 18:23-35. I had to politely preach to that church woman the message of Simon the leper. Simon the Pharisee used to be a leprous outcast, whom Jesus had healed and restored. He invited Jesus to a feast in his house probably to honour the Healer or more probably to celebrate and officially announce, with the benefit of Jesus’ dignified and endorsing presence, his new social status as no-more-a-leper. It seemed he needed to give as public a notice as possible to friends and foes that he was back from the colony of despicable lepers into the esteemed circle of whole and healthy folks. Unfortunately, an uninvited woman also showed up at that event; a woman who had come to weep at the feet of Jesus for the cleansing of her own soul. The self-righteous attitude of Simon the ex-leper, the typical pharisaic attitude, was to berate the woman as an untouchable sinner and silently castigate the Master as a blind prophet for condoning that sinner, “if” He was a prophet at all.
Now when the Pharisee [note his badge, “Pharisee!”] which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, IF he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner (Luke 7:39).
In the self-righteous eyes of that Pharisee, even Jesus had become merely “this man” for fraternizing with someone he saw as an undeserving terrible sinner. “This Man” – what a title for the Master! “This MAN” – the lofty Messiah reduced to the commonplace of mundane creatures. “THIS man” – privileged proximity, closeness, nearness in space and relationship at the dinner table had been abused; it had become a reason to no more respect holy boundaries. “This man” – Simon probably sat so close to Jesus that he could have poked Him off with his holy pole.
According to that unforgiving Pharisee, even though “this man” might have been a healer, He was not holy, and certainly not prophet enough, otherwise He should have had nothing to do with a sinful woman of that leprous sort. Evidently, the scourge of leprosy had not succeeded to humble the arrogant Simon. The sad days or years of leprosy had taught him no lesson on respectful relationship. He had come back prouder than ever, even against his Maker. Not only did he demean the woman and the Master, he expressed his public doubts about the authenticity of the ministry and person of Jesus, despite himself being a recent beneficiary. “This man, IF he were a prophet….” The meaning of ‘if’ here is, “I have my doubts.” I fear the future of such folks. They often end worse than those they vilify.
How quickly Simon had forgotten that he had been a worse leper than that ‘sinner.’ He, the cleansing of his outer flesh for earthly accolade; she, the more precious cleansing of her inner soul, which had attracted Heaven’s enduring endorsement. Often, it is Pharisees who have been worse sinners that pick quick holes in other people’s acts to label them ‘unpardonable sinners.’ Proper high priests who have known mercy for their own frailties are more merciful, not because they condone sin, but because they have tasted mercy that they would share with others.
When Simon acted that way, digging up that woman’s past to smear her present, he provoked Jesus to call up his own fresh sins; not sins of commission but sins of omission; not the bad things he had done but the good things he had failed to do, of which Heaven had taken no less notice. For example, he never offered Jesus water to wash the feet, which the castigated woman had done with her tears; he never welcomed his Guest with a kiss, which the woman had done ceaselessly at His feet; he did not anoint the head of Jesus with oil, which the woman had done to His tear-bathed feet (vv.44-46). Jesus had to speak up to defend that innocent woman in the unkind courts of the Pharisee, a woman who had shown herself more righteous than her self-righteous judge who stood condemned in the courts of God not for blatant sins committed but for little kindnesses ignored.
That is what happens when you ignore your own faults and focus on those of others. Then you draw attention to your own failings about which Heaven and mortals might have been silent or unaware. Frail Pharisees are more prone to harp on the failings of others, usually as a means of diverting attention from their own worse leprosies. In the process, they merely announce to discerning ears the leprosies in their soul despite their glowing skins.
From the remarks of Jesus the Great Judge, who of the two would you say was the bigger sinner? Evidently, Simon the accuser. That was also the tragedy of the unforgiving servant in Jesus’ parable on forgiveness (Matthew 18:23-35). What recalled that unmerciful servant’s forgotten huge file was another servant’s old tiny file, which he vehemently called up, and would not let go until he had had him put into the jail from which he himself had been forgiven and freed.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again (Matthew 7:2).
Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again (Luke 6:38).
Jesus did not call up that ex-leper’s forgiven past as the man had done to the woman. Those records of past sins no more existed in the accounts of God, but Jesus highlighted the present trespasses of that man who by his unmerciful acts had brought fresh charges into his new file. By how he treated another, he failed to sustain his own forgiveness; by how he treated another, he merely multiplied trespasses against himself.
How to sustain personal forgiveness is to not focus on the trespasses of others. True forgiveness is not without conditions, even where those conditions might not have been explicit. To sin again and again against someone because their ready ocean of forgiveness turns merciful forgivers into unthinkable beasts. Yesterday’s pardon does not also cover tomorrow’s trespasses. “Go and sin no more… LEST…”
Culled from the book FORGIVENESS, by The Preacher (2021) pp.173-180
