The Teachings of Jesus

Sermon Seventy-Four

Matthew 18:21-35

by

Jim Bordwine, ThD

Introduction

In the Christian faith, there are a few fundamental, indispensable concepts that lie at the heart of our system of belief. You may get by very well without understanding a number of doctrines, but then there are some teachings that are of the essence of Christianity and without a comprehension of them, your overall ability to enjoy your state of redemption will suffer and you will be ill-equipped to live out a basic truth of your faith. Your representation of Christianity to others, therefore, will be incomplete, misleading, and probably damaging.

Forgiveness is one of these fundamental, indispensable concepts. Think about forgiveness—would you not agree that this teaching is at the heart of our belief system? Wouldn’t we agree that if I do not understand the Bible’s teaching on forgiveness, I will surely never be fully freed from the burden of my own sin? Moreover, wouldn’t we also agree that without a proper comprehension of forgiveness, I will be unprepared to extend this wonderful gift to others in my life?

How can I possibly understand what Christ did for me unless I also understand the concept of forgiveness? How can I live in the joy of my redemption if I don’t really grasp how my redemption came to be? And think about mercy; what can I know about mercy if I don’t first understand the idea of forgiveness? This is one of those doctrines that is tied to all of the most significant teachings of Christianity.

Today, as we finish our examination of Matt. 18, Jesus teaches on this marvelous concept of forgiveness. He will show us that forgiveness functions at two levels in our lives—our relationship with God and our relationships with everyone else.

The Text

Matt. 18:21 Then Peter came and said to Him, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?” 22 Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.”

The Teaching

I’m going to read only the first two verses for now because I want you to take note of something about Peter that will be extraordinarily helpful as we progress through this study of forgiveness. First, however, let’s set the context for this passage. Matthew places this exchange between Peter and Jesus in the context of the Savior’s teaching regarding child-like faith and humility (vv. 1-6), and His instruction about the necessity and method of resolving conflict between brothers (vv. 15-17). You’ll recall that the process Jesus taught involves going to a brother who has sinned against you to seek reconciliation. Maybe this is what prompted Peter’s question.

I just said there is something revealed here about Peter that will help us in our study of forgiveness. I’ll identify that bit of insight by asking you to consider him and as you do, ask yourself this question: What is wrong with this man’s thinking as he comes to Jesus? There is something wrong with the way Peter is thinking as he talks to Jesus about forgiveness. Something that Peter is presupposing is of enormous importance when it comes to learning all we can from this passage. What presupposition, therefore, does Peter hold that is complicating this issue for him?

In the simplest way I know to say it, here is what is wrong with Peter’s assumption as he comes to Jesus: Peter is assuming that there is a limit to forgiveness; he is thinking of forgiveness in terms of quantity, as if it is a resource that can be exhausted. Peter is assuming, you see, that there is a limit to the obligation of forgiveness. He is assuming that the duty to forgive is governed by a frequency factor. If a brother sins against you repeatedly and you forgive him repeatedly when he repents (which is implied in v. 15), then surely that scenario cannot go on indefinitely. Peter is not thinking of forgiveness as if it is an attribute that defines a person’s character. There is a huge difference between these two perspectives. One is always looking for an opportunity to stop forgiving and the other always welcomes every opportunity to forgive.

Please take note of what Peter does not ask. Peter doesn’t ask “Lord, am I permitted to forgive my brother as often as he asks for forgiveness?” He doesn’t ask “Lord, is it acceptable to forgive my brother over and over again, if necessary?” Peter frames his question with the belief that forgiveness is a duty he must fulfill; and he believes that this duty has a limit and once that limit is reached, he no longer has to forgive. Do you see that Peter, at this point in his life, is closer to the man who forgives only if he has to forgive, rather than the man who wants to forgive and takes every opportunity to do so? It appears Peter wants to know that, sooner or later, he can refuse to forgive that brother who comes seeking forgiveness time after time.

In an expression of generosity, or so he things, Peter pictures himself forgiving his brother up to seven times. Surely that is sufficient, he’s thinking, to satisfy the Lord’s command to seek reconciliation with a brother who sins against me. After all, Peter was aware that the rabbis required a man to forgive his brother up to three times; Peter thinks, therefore, that he is exceeding the standard of the Pharisees by suggesting he will forgive up to seven times. But the Lord’s answer destroys Peter’s idea. Jesus tells him he must forgive up to seventy times seven—meaning he must forgive always. There is no limit to forgiveness.

I’ll point out what I hope is obvious. When Jesus corrects Peter, He is referring to genuine repentance on the part of the offender. There is no limit on our obligation or ability to forgive over and over again, if necessary, when repentance is true. Jesus is not thinking of instances where an offender is trying to take advantage of another man’s willingness to forgive and therefore, attempts to abuse this gift of forgiveness.

I say again, then, that Peter’s question reveals a troubling presupposition at work in his thinking. If a husband asks, “How long must I love my wife?”, would you conclude that his main concern in the marriage is to love his wife or that his main concern is to know when he is free not to love his wife? When someone asks about a limit, it’s because they hope there is a limit. It means that they reluctantly accept a duty, if they must, but they long for the day when they have exhausted that duty and are not required thereafter to fulfill it.

On the other hand, if a husband declares, “I will love my wife all my days,” then you would conclude that the main concern on his mind is loving his wife, not finding a way to refuse to love her. In the first case, the husband looks at loving his wife as a duty he will fulfill as long as he must; in the second case, the husband believes loving his wife is a natural part of being a husband. Being a loving husband is part of who he is as a man.

The form of Peter’s question reveals a needed correction in his heart; and there is only one way for that correction to be made. Before we see what that correction is, however, I want to ask about your thinking on forgiveness. Have you ever had the thought Peter mentions, that of limiting your forgiveness of someone? Do you find joy in extending forgiveness or do you do it more from a sense of obligation? Are you glad that God gave us such a gift to be shared with one another? Are there times when you would prefer to act on your thoughts of revenge or “pay back” instead of telling someone you forgive them? These questions are asked to help you do an honest evaluation of yourself. There are two ways to think of forgiveness—as a duty we have to fulfill, or as a gift we love to share.

I’m sure you realize by now that I’m saying forgiveness should not be treated as if it has a quantity or as if it is a raw duty; I’m saying that forgiveness is a trait or characteristic of a born-again person. If this is true, then we need to know why. Why should we think of forgiveness in this manner? Why are we to be exceptionally generous in this matter of showing forgiveness to others? Why was Peter’s question wrongly grounded? These questions are answered in the story Jesus tells Peter.

The Text Continued

23 “For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves. 24 “When he had begun to settle them, one who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. 25 “But since he did not have the means to repay, his lord commanded him to be sold, along with his wife and children and all that he had, and repayment to be made. 26 “So the slave fell to the ground and prostrated himself before him, saying, ‘Have patience with me and I will repay you everything.’ 27 “And the lord of that slave felt compassion and released him and forgave him the debt. 28 “But that slave went out and found one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii; and he seized him and began to choke him, saying, ‘Pay back what you owe.’ 29 “So his fellow slave fell to the ground and began to plead with him, saying, ‘Have patience with me and I will repay you.’ 30 “But he was unwilling and went and threw him in prison until he should pay back what was owed. 31 “So when his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were deeply grieved and came and reported to their lord all that had happened. 32 “Then summoning him, his lord said to him, ‘You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 33 ‘Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?’ 34 “And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him. 35 “My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.”

I said there was only one correction for Peter’s heart so that he would start thinking and acting rightly about forgiveness. This story identifies that correction.

The Teaching (continued)

This truly is an amazing story because it encapsulates the essential understanding that we are to have regarding the issues of guilt and forgiveness. Briefly, let me summarize this story. There are three significant parties in this story: the king, the first slave, and the second slave. Jesus describes a circumstance in which a king determined to require from his slaves all that was owed to him (v. 23). In this case, the slaves probably are government officials who had charge over various regions within the king’s realm and were responsible for collecting taxes that went into the royal treasury.

In the course of this event, one particular official was brought before the king who owed him ten thousand talents (v. 24). A talent was 6000 denarii—equivalent to about one thousand dollars; in other words, this official owed the king around 10-12 million dollars, which is an enormous sum of money in any age, but especially in the first century. The issue is not, by the way, how this man came to owe so much money; the issue is that it is an amount he could never possibly repay. This element enables Jesus to make His point about forgiveness later.

Even before we get there, however, I’m sure you can see where Jesus is going with this story. He’s not all that concerned about money owed by a slave to a master, or a debt owed by a servant to a king. Jesus is chiefly concerned about the debt of guilt that stood between us and God. He’s telling a story to make some points about how those who receive much, owe much; about how those who know mercy are to demonstrate mercy. Jesus is dealing with the heart of Peter and, in the process, teaching all of His followers how to think and act.

Facing a severe consequence because he could not pay this amount, the slave “fell to the ground and prostrated himself before [the king] saying, ‘Have patience with me and I will repay you everything.’” (v. 26) Don’t miss the point that the slave is begging for mercy because his debt is too huge to be repaid. His promise to repay was, in fact, meaningless because there was no possibility that he could ever raise that kind of money. Thus far, then, we have a king who justly demands payment of what is owed to him and a slave who has no recourse but to seek mercy from the king. Next we read that the king “felt compassion and released him and forgave him the debt.” (v. 27)

Let’s understand what is being done here. The debt was legitimate—the king really was owed the money; therefore, his demand for payment was just. Nevertheless, an element is introduced that allows the debtor to go free even though he did not pay his obligation. Now, we must ask: what is it that allows a debtor to be released from a legitimate debt even though he does not pay what he owes? The answer is clear: the king “forgave him the debt.” The king had the prerogative to cancel out what was owed to him by the slave. The slave was in a position of owing and the king was in the position of being owed, so it was his right simply to cancel the debt if he chose. His was an act of pure mercy.

Let’s not overlook this one great truth: Forgiveness is grounded in, is produced from, and is the primary representation of mercy. Forgiveness is an expression of mercy and mercy is always beautiful because it reflects the amazing character of God. Jesus isn’t telling a story just to be telling a story. He’s also giving a lecture about the nature of God. This becomes clear as the story continues.

Notice that the text says the king “felt compassion” for the slave. The slave had nothing with which to bargain. The slave’s promise to repay was void, as I noted. The king was under no pressure to act as he did; he very well could have followed through with his original plan of selling the slave and his family to recover part of his money. Instead, he forgave the debt. The king simply erased the account of what was owed and the slave, who just moments before was condemned and facing a harsh penalty, walked away without obligation.

The enormity of the debt highlights the magnanimous action of the king who forgave it. This is the focus of this part of the story. The slave had been forgiven much; and even saying that is an understatement. The slave was shown a degree of mercy that went far beyond what anyone could have expected. Equally stressed thus far are the slave’s enormous debt and the king’s incredible expression of forgiveness. Therefore, this parable could have ended here and the Lord would have made a clear point about forgiveness—that being that it is underserved and increases in glory according to the enormity of that which is forgiven.

If the story were to end here, the emphasis would be upon the forgiving king, not necessarily upon the one who was forgiven. However, Jesus is not finished teaching this lesson on forgiveness. Stopping here would not get the point across to Peter.

The story continues and we are told that this slave who had been forgiven such an enormous debt “went out and found one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii; and he seized him and began to choke him, saying, ‘Pay back what you owe.’” (v. 28) The behavior of the first slave is remarkable. After being forgiven an enormous debt and walking away from that situation free and clear, he angrily demands the repayment of a measly amount (by comparison) from a fellow slave. This is where the point Jesus wishes to make becomes obvious: what about the mercy shown to the first slave? Should that not have had some impact on him? Why is he not showing a similar compassion to his fellow slave? How can he go away from the compassionate king and immediately treat a fellow slave so contemptibly?

The way Jesus tells the story, this is the striking inconsistency seen in the first slave’s conduct. The one who had been forgiven much should have been willing to forgive little. Because he had received such an incredible display of mercy from this king, that slave should have been more than willing—even eager—to display a like mercy toward his fellow slave. Instead, he was ruthless and unforgiving, even going so far as to choke his poor fellow slave while demanding payment.

Ironically, the second slave repeats the words that the first slave spoke to the king: “Have patience with me and I will repay you.” (v. 29) The king responded to that plea with compassion and he forgave the debt. But the forgiven slave, now that he had an opportunity to mimic the king, instead was “unwilling and went and threw [his fellow slave] in prison until he should pay back what was owed.” (v. 30) The forgiven slave responded in a manner opposite that which had been done for him. He had been forgiven a debt almost beyond calculation and he was allowed to go free. But, when faced with the same kind of situation, when faced with an opportunity to imitate the king’s kindness and this in regard to a debt of relative insignificance, the forgiven slave was unwilling to forgive.

The hypocrisy is evident. The story is designed to emphasize the unrighteous behavior of the slave who had been forgiven much but who was unwilling to extend forgiveness to another. This parable is designed to make us feel disgust for the wicked slave because what he should have done is so obvious to us. Was he a man who considered forgiveness a sign of a godly character? No, I don’t think so! Was he a man who was reluctant to forgive—or, in this case, even unwilling to forgive? Yes, he certainly was! He learned nothing from the generous action of the king; he learned nothing because he was a self-centered man who had regard for himself alone. He was ruled by greed, not compassion. Think what would have happened to him if the king had been ruled by greed, rather than compassion.

Well, we don’t have to wonder what would have happened. The story concludes with this outrage being brought to the attention of the king. Other slaves saw what the forgiven slave did and “they were deeply grieved and came and reported to their lord all that had happened.” (v. 31) Why were they “deeply grieved,” do you think? Is it not because they—like anyone with knowledge of what the king had done for the wicked slave—realized that forgiveness carries an obligation to be forgiving? Is it not because they saw that the wicked slave was a rank hypocrite who did not show to others the kindness shown to him? They rightly told the king about the slave’s terrible conduct.

The king summoned the slave and said to him: “You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?” (vv. 32, 33) This is stating the obvious. This is the essential lesson of this parable and this is Christ’s answer to Peter. The enormity of what is forgiven determines the degree to which one should be willing to extend forgiveness. Receiving forgiveness should make me a forgiving man.

In His initial answer to Peter, Jesus indicated that the debt forgiven Peter was of such magnitude that his obligation to extend forgiveness to others was without limit—not up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. In other words, Peter was to be a man always ready to forgive, always eager to forgive in light of what had been forgiven him, namely, his sin. This is the Lord’s point and this parable illustrates that very truth.

Jesus concludes by noting that the wicked slave was punished by the very one who had forgiven him earlier. And then Jesus makes a statement that indicates this parable has application to those who follow Him as disciples: “My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.” (v. 35) He doesn’t mean that God will torture us until we forgive; He means that the One who has forgiven us such an enormous debt will certainly be displeased with us and chastise us if we fail to be forgiving people. He means that like the slave in the parable, we have been forgiven a debt that we had no hope of paying; He means that the compassion shown to us by God should translate into our showing compassion to our fellow man.

With this statement in v. 35, it becomes clear that the king in the parable represents God, the first slave represents a forgiven sinner and the second slave represents any fellow sinner who seeks forgiveness from him. Peter had asked how many times he was obligated to forgive his brother who sinned against him. Jesus puts the matter into full and proper perspective by telling this story. Peter was one who had been forgiven, so his question should have been: “Lord, how often shall I, one who has been forgiven by God, forgive my brother who sins against me?”

Peter left out the all-important element that the parable illustrated, namely, that he already had been forgiven much by God. He did not need to ask his question, not if he really understood God’s mercy. There is no quantity associated with forgiveness, as I noted before; forgiveness is an attitude or a part of a person’s character. This passage doesn’t answer every possible question to be asked about forgiveness, so don’t get distracted by the various scenarios you might think of. Instead, get this basic truth nailed down: Those shown mercy are to show mercy—always and not as if keeping an account.

Had Peter had this truth in mind, he never would have asked his question in the first place because the answer is so obvious. He was to forgive his brother every time his brother sinned against him because he would never match the extent of what had been forgiven him. His obligation to be a forgiving person was an abiding obligation, one which would never be exhausted in this life.

This passage establishes the basis for the quality of forgiveness in the Christian life. By using this parable in response to Peter’s question, Jesus teaches that those who follow Him will be marked by a willingness and eagerness to forgive others in light of what they have received from God. Notice how the parable is introduced: “For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a certain king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves.” (v. 23) That phrase, “for this reason,” follows the Lord’s statement to Peter that he must be willing to forgive his brother “up to seventy times seven.” (v. 22) Forgiveness of one another is to be a leading trait in the kingdom of heaven. The kingdom of heaven thrives on forgiveness; it is built upon the foundation of forgiveness; and all the citizens of this kingdom must show these truths in their relationships.

Application

I noted before that the purpose of the story is to establish the basis for the forgiving attitude that we are to have toward others. It’s not difficult to see that forgiveness cannot be practiced rightly without a recognition of why we should be forgiving people. Before we go forth to forgive the offenses done to us by others, we have to have a clear understanding of what God has done for us. In this parable, Jesus teaches that there is a connection between what has been done for us and what we should do for others.

All of this started with Peter’s question: “Lord how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?” Now, I have to wonder how many Christians would have agreed with Peter that forgiving a brother up to seven times is demonstrating an admirable amount of good will. Peter certainly thought that by going well beyond the norm. As he found out, however, he had not even begun to grasp the matter and that was because he was looking at forgiveness as something he gave instead of something he owed. We must not make the same mistake.

We must not approach this issue thinking that when we forgive the trespasses committed against us that we are doing some wonderful, “above and beyond the call of duty” kind of thing. Forgiveness is not something we dispense as we choose according to circumstances; forgiveness is something that we owe because of what God has done for us. This is the beginning point for a right understanding and practice of forgiveness; without this apprehension, our thinking about forgiveness and our practice of forgiveness are bound to be misguided—we will end up thinking, as I said, that forgiveness is something that we bestow upon an unworthy brother according to our pleasure and whim instead of realizing that forgiveness is something that we owe to every man who seeks it because of what has been forgiven us.

How different would our marriages be if we all listened to Jesus and were eager to forgive when wronged or when we think we’ve been wronged? How might relationships between parents and children be affected if we were glad and eager to forgive? How far would disputes progress in a church if all the members truly loved for forgive one another?

Take time today, take time this week to consider God’s forgiveness of you. And as you think about that, consider also whether you are a forgiving person. The truth is, there is no justification for unresolved conflict in our relationships—not if all parties in a dispute or all parties involved in an offense are dedicated to handling the issue Biblically. I can say this because you will never suffer an offense greater than your offense against God and that offense has been forgiven by Him. We have no defense for treating a brother or sister as anything other than a beloved fellow-saint. The bottom line, which is taught throughout the Bible, is this: Treat others as you have been treated. That is the key to peace in a marriage, in a home, in a church, and everywhere else.

Let’s pray…

Baptisms

Before we proceed to the Lord’s Supper, we have the opportunity of administering the sacrament of baptism once again this morning. We talk a lot about the covenant family in this church; we talk about the image we see in Scripture of multiple generations in the same family walking before the Lord in peace.

I’m sure every parent here would like to see multiple generations of descendants all believing the gospel and all living peacefully before God. We want to see our children walk in faith, and their children, and their children. We know that is the vision God gives His people in Scripture. And many of us, if we were to look back toward our grandparents and great grandparents, would see that we are part of an ongoing line of believers. We would see that God has been honoring His promise to be God to our fathers and God to us and God to those coming after us.

Rarely, however, do we get to witness this truth in front of our own eyes. We don’t get many opportunities to have our great grandparents, our grandparents, ourselves, and our children all in the same place. When it happens, it is a wonderful picture of just how the gospel works from one generation to the next.

This morning, we have the opportunity of seeing four generations of believers all together in the same place as the latest additions to that line are baptized.

I want to emphasize what we know to be true: every occurrence of faith is, of course, the work of God’s Spirit, by His grace and only by His grace. When we see the gospel spanning generations, we should be humbled and thankful because that happens not because we are extra good people, but because God is a God of grace and mercy.

I’m going to ask the Berkompas families to come forward, please.

Tom Berkompas and family

Tom’s remarks

Vows

Prayer

Jonathan Berkompas and family (Tucks join us)

Vows

Prayer

Communion hymn…

Conclusion

I am thankful that we have this sacrament every week because it helps me keep my mind focused on the most important thing in my life, which is my salvation. When my mind is focused on my salvation and all the truths associated with that concept, I find that it is much easier for me to be Christ-like in my daily walk.

When I revisit the work of my Savior on my behalf, I cannot help but be humbled and made thankful all over again. When we are thankful, when we are humbled by the work of Christ on our behalf, we treat others in a God-honoring manner. We seek the good of others, we desire God’s will to be done, and we are forgiving people.

Once again today, I’ll use the words of Paul as he explained the meaning of this sacrament to the Corinthians:

1 Cor. 11:23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.