Forgiveness

By S.H. Parsons ©2022

Difficulties Concerning Forgiveness

There is, within Christian denominations the foundational principle of forgiveness. It is the reason why Jesus died (to forgive human sins), and it is the point on which many stumble because all want to be forgiven but few want to forgive.

A cursory glance at some of the Scriptures related to forgiveness reveals some seemingly contradictory ideas. For example, on one hand it is asserted that only God can forgive sins:

“⁵Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the paralytic, ‘Son, your sins are forgiven you.’ ⁶But there were some of the scribes sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, ⁷’Why does this man speak blasphemies like that? Who can forgive sins but God alone?’ ⁸Immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, said to them, ‘Why do you reason these things in your hearts? ⁹Which is easier, to tell the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven;’ or to say, ‘Arise, and take up your bed, and walk’?’ ¹⁰But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins’—he said to the paralytic— ¹¹’I tell you, arise, take up your mat, and go to your house.’ ¹²He arose, and immediately took up the mat and went out in front of them all, so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, ‘We never saw anything like this!’” (Mark 2:5-12)

In this passage, Jesus does not correct the scribes’ reasoning that only God can forgive sins, but rather uses the moment to provide evidence that He is, in fact, God. The scribes were accurate in their knowledge about the forgiveness of sins; for they knew that sin requires payment of life blood (Leviticus 17:11), and that humans, on their own, cannot shed blood (die) and still live. What the scribes didn’t understand was Christ’s identity. He, being God in the flesh, was able to shed blood for sin and then live through His identity as God. So, it is true that only God is able to forgive sins…and that is exactly what Christ came to do (Matthew 20:28, Mark 10:45).

So, on one hand, only God is able to forgive sins. But, then why, on the other hand, are those who follow Christ commanded to forgive? For it is written:

“²⁵Whenever you stand praying, forgive, (imperative tense) if you have anything against anyone; so that your Father, who is in heaven, may also forgive you your transgressions.” (Mark 11:25)

So too, Jesus taught how to pray saying, “¹²Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors…¹⁴For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. ¹⁵But if you don’t forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” (Matthew 6:12,14; see also Luke 11:4) Questions related to these verses abound: If only God is able to forgive sins, why did Jesus teach as if it is something people can do? Why does it seem like Jesus put a threat behind not forgiving? Why does Jesus give the impression that a person’s position of being forgiven by God is based on their own actions such that God’s forgiveness might be based on human forgiveness?

Further, at first glance at the Lord’s prayer, it seems like Jesus was teaching that people must forgive everyone, under any and all circumstances in order to receive God’s forgiveness. But, if this is true, why would Jesus have also said “²³If you forgive anyone’s sins, they have been forgiven them. If you retain anyone’s sins, they have been retained.” (John 20:23) This makes it seem as if, not only were the apostles (at the very least) able to forgive sins, but that there are instances in which sins should not be forgiven. Really? Under what circumstances ought someone not be forgiven? And, what does this look like given the command to forgive in the Lord’s prayer? All of this, at first, seems very confusing…

What follows is an analysis of forgiveness based on the following questions: 1) What is forgiveness and how does it happen 2) When and where does forgiveness happen? 3) Who is forgiven and why? In answering these questions, the goal is to bring clarity to the challenging and seemingly contradictory ideas surrounding forgiveness.

1) What is forgiveness and how does it happen?

In the original Greek language, the word generally translated “forgive” is the word “aphiemi” which, according to https://biblehub.com/greek/863.htm, is from the roots “apo” meaning “away from” and hiemi meaning “to send.” Thus, there is the idea of “giving up (sending away)” something – though that something may be rightfully reckoned – as in the following example passage:

“³Be careful. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him. If he repents, forgive (“aphiemi”) him. ⁴If he sins against you seven times in the day, and seven times returns, saying, ‘I repent,’ you shall forgive (“aphiemi”) him.” (Luke 17:3-4; see also Matthew 18:21, Mark 4:21, Luke 11:4)

Yet, there are nuances to the word which cause confusion. For example, the same word (in various verb conjugations) appears in all three of the following passages:

• “²³If therefore you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has anything against you, ²⁴leave (“aphiemi”) your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.” (Matthew 5:23-24)

• ⁵⁵In that hour Jesus said to the multitudes, “Have you come out as against a robber with swords and clubs to seize me? I sat daily in the temple teaching, and you didn’t arrest me. ⁵⁶But all this has happened that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples left him (“aphiemi”) and fled. (Matthew 26:55-56)

• ¹¹Then the devil left him (“aphiemi”), and behold, angels came and served him. (Matthew 4:11)

In the first passage above, the word in question is used in the context of what is done with a gift being presented to God on His altar. Are we to “forgive” a gift when we remember that someone holds something against us? The idea of doing so doesn’t make sense. The second passage speaks of when Jesus was arrested and all His disciples deserted (“aphiemi”) Him. Is this a case of the disciples “forgiving” Jesus? Certainly not. Then, the third passage concerns the devil “leaving” Jesus after having tempted Him in the desert. Could this be considered a “forgiving act” on Satan’s part? Again, certainly not.

So how can all of the usages of the word “aphiemi” be harmonized? What is the common denominator in all of these passages? The answer is that all of the things to which the word “aphiemi” is applied are things which become unbound. The gift is not “forgiven,” so to speak, but rather it is “unbound” from the person who was giving it. The disciples did not “forgive” Jesus when they deserted him. Rather, they did not “hold fast” to Him – Jesus was “unbound.” Similarly, the devil did not “forgive” Jesus after tempting Him; rather, the devil did not “hold fast” to Him – again, Jesus was “unbound.”

Reconsidering, then, the initial passage about forgiveness from Luke 17:3-4, how does the idea of forgiveness as a term for an unbinding action clarify how “aphiemi” is used in instances of when someone sins against another? It is seen that when someone sins against another, there is a call for rebuke – in a way fitting to the situation (https://biblehub.com/greek/2008.htm), and that a subsequent sign of repentance from the offender calls for the one who had been wronged to “forgive” – not “hold fast,” but rather to make a “sending away/unbinding” action. But this seems…strange…even contrary to the traditional way of thinking about “forgiving.” Are we really to “send away/unbind” our brothers/sisters in Christs who sin against us? Before misunderstandings arise on this issue, the concepts of binding and loosing must be considered in greater depth…

Binding and Loosing

Jesus taught about binding and loosing in the following passage:

“¹³Now when Jesus came into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, ‘Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?’ ¹⁴They said, ‘Some say John the Baptizer, some, Elijah, and others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.’ ¹⁵He said to them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’ ¹⁶Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ ¹⁷Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. ¹⁸I also tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my assembly, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. ¹⁹I will give to you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind (“deo”) on earth will have been bound (“deo”) in heaven; and whatever you release (“luo”) on earth will have been released (“luo”) in heaven.‘” (Matthew 16:13-19)

Much could be elaborated upon in this passage, but for the purposes of this analysis of forgiveness, verse 19 is the verse of particular interest. For centuries, most scholars accepted the Catholic Church’s position on this verse. This point of view asserts that if you “unite/bind” yourself to Peter here on earth (accept his and his successors’ authority as Christ’s chosen leaders) you will be bound in Heaven; but if you “loose” yourself from Peter (reject his and his successors’ authority) on earth, you will be loosed from Christ in Heaven (condemned to hell). This position is evident in the statement from the Catholic encyclopedia: “It is through [the church’s] union (spiritually and externally) with Peter…that the Church will prove the victor in her long contest with the Evil One.”

In Catholic doctrine, this power to bind and loose is viewed as a power given by Jesus exclusively to Peter (and his successors) and is spiritually translated into the belief that it is Peter who determines who/what will be (or will not be) admitted into heaven – hence Peter is often pictured at the “pearly gates” of heaven allowing or disallowing entrance of the spirits of those who have died. Those who Peter identifies as in communion (bound) with the Church on earth are also “bound” to God in heaven whereas those who are excluded (loosed) from communion with the Church on earth are cut off from God in heaven.

Again, according to the Catholic encyclopedia, this interpretation of the passage in Matthew 16 remained unchallenged until the time of the Reformation. Since that time, “a great variety of interpretations have been put forth.” Indeed, there are at least five other interpretations of the passage which will not be elaborated here. But it is of note that, despite protestant interpretations, there is a deep ingraining of the Catholic interpretation of binding and loosing such that the majority of people, not having analyzed the issue closely, believe that it is good to be bound on earth in order to realize binding in heaven, and conversely that it is undesirable to be unbound on earth such that there is unbinding in heaven.

However, the Catholic interpretation of “binding and loosing” does not agree with rabbinical usage of those words. Historically, rabbis would “bind” something that they “forbade” and “loose” something that they “allowed.” For example, rabbis defined walking more than 2,000 cubits as “work” and they therefore “bound” (forbade) any activity involving walking further than this distance on the Sabbath Day. Yet…it was not uncommon for Jews to “bind” phylacteries (small leather boxes containing Scripture) to their left arm and their forehead in order to fulfill Deuteronomy 6:8 and 11:18. Certainly the Word of God would not be considered unlawful or forbidden! So it is seen that in Jewish tradition, binding was primarily but not exclusively applied to what was unlawful.

Interestingly, the rabbinical understanding of “binding” in the sense of “forbidding” agrees with the exegetical examination of the original Greek words in Matthew 16:19: “deo,” translated “to bind,” means “to declare something to be prohibited or unlawful” (http://biblehub.com/greek/ 1210.htm). But, then, Colossians 3:14 states: “¹⁴Above all these things, walk in love, which is the bond of perfection.” Certainly, to be “bound” in love does not involve what is unlawful or forbidden! Therefore, “binding,” in general, can not always be considered bad/forbidden, and concepts surrounding ‘binding” must be understood in a more nuanced way.

Turning to look at the original Greek word “luo” translated “release” or “loose,” it is noted that the word is not an exact antonym of “deo” as one might be led to believe through rabbinical thought. Rather, the word means “to unleash or let go; release (unbind) so that something no longer holds together” (https://biblehub.com/greek/3089.htm). But, what is “unleashed or let go” may or may not indicate what is allowed (or disallowed), for the definition does not provide such distinction. Thus, the word may be used in the context of what might be allowed/favorable (Luke 13:15-16), or disallowed/unfavorable (5:19).

So, if “binding” may indicate a state of what is favorable or unfavorable and loosing may also indicate a state of what is favorable or unfavorable, what did Jesus mean when He said, “whatever you bind (“deo”) on earth will have been bound (“deo”) in heaven; and whatever you release (“luo”) on earth will have been released (“luo”) in heaven”? What is the truth in all of this?

The truth is that everyone is bound to the law which reveals disobedience/sin (Romans 11:32; Romans 3:20, Hebrews 2:2). A person, being bound to the Law will inevitably break the law (Romans 3:23), and therefore, become bound to the penalty of breaking the law – the penalty of sin which is death (Romans 6:23). As it is written “Scripture has imprisoned (bound together) all things under sin…” (Galatians 3:22) Since all are bound under sin and sin is unlawful, it can be seen that everyone’s default position is a state of being “bound” as unlawful – an unfavorable state. All need conditions to change in order to move into a favorable state. That is, all need to be loosed from sin’s resultant penalty of death.

But, How might “loosing” of a sinner from the penalty of sin/death be done? Is it by Peter’s power? No – Peter could not bind Satan/sin or release even his own sins (nonetheless anyone else’s sin) as was seen in the very next verses of the passage from Matthew 16 where Jesus says to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, for you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of men” (Matthew 16:23). If not by Peter (and his successors), does the binding of Satan/sin come by the power of just any human leader, king, priest/minister? It has already been stipulated that sin requires payment of life blood (Leviticus 17:11), and that humans on their own, cannot shed blood (die) and still live. Therefore, no mere human can bind Satan/sin. No, the way to bind sin to release the sinner from its penalty, according to the following passage from Revelation, is through Christ’s blood:

“⁴John, to the seven assemblies that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace from God, who is and who was and who is to come; and from the seven Spirits who are before his throne; ⁵and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us, and released (“luo”) us from our sins by his blood— ⁶and he made us to be a Kingdom, priests to his God and Father—to him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.” (Revelation 1:4-6)

Indeed, sin is declared unlawful (bound) through the shedding of Christ’s blood so that the sinner is loosed from the penalty of death.

A cautionary note is necessary, at this point, with respect to binding and loosing. That is, it is vital to keep track of what is bound and what is loosed. For example, in Matthew 5:23-34 where the gift is left before the alter and the offender commanded to go be reconciled to the one who was offended, it is the gift that is unbound. It is tempting to think that the offender is unbound because of the command to go be reconciled. But, it is actually the gift that was direct object of the verb “aphiemi.” So too, in the situations where Jesus was “left” by the disciples and Satan, it was Jesus who was the direct object…Jesus who was unbound. The other things – the offender, the deserting disciples, Satan – were, therefore, the “bound” parties. Interestingly, each of the things that are identified as “bound” in these passages, had a fault, failing,, or insufficiency – that is, the offender, the deserting disciples, Satan were associated with sin in some way.

So it is that in the case of the sinner, what is bound and what is loosed must be carefully considered. People are bound to the Law (Hebrews 2:2). The sinner, in breaking of the Law (sin) is actually attempting to be loosed of the Law’s restrictions. Loosing from the Law (breaking it by sinning), however, binds the sinner to the penalty of breaking the law – that is, death. So the sinner is either bound to the Law (which he/she eventually cannot keep), or loosed from the Law and bound to the penalty of breaking the Law which is death. Christ’s blood pays the penalty which is death, such that the sinner is loosed from the penalty. So, it must be understood that the sinner is loosed from the penalty of sin; not loosed from the Law (which had already been loosed – broken – through the sin); not loosed from sin itself which already would have come to pass and been “bound” as unlawful; but instead loosed from the penalty of sin (death).

Yet, once sin is “bound” (declared unlawful) and the sinner loosed from the penalty of sin through the shedding of Christ’s blood, the sinner is still not released from bondage. Paul explained:

“¹⁶Don’t you know that when you present yourselves as slaves (doulos”) and obey someone, you are the slaves (“doulos”) of whomever you obey, whether of sin to death, or of obedience to righteousness? ¹⁷But thanks be to God that, whereas you were slaves (“doulos”) of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were delivered. ¹⁸Being made free from sin, you have become enslaved (“douloo”) to righteousness. ¹⁹I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh; for as you presented your members as slaves (“doulos”) to impurity and to lawlessness unto lawlessness, even so now present your members as slaves (“doulos”) to righteousness for sanctification. ²⁰For when you were slaves (“doulos”) of sin, you were free from righteousness. ²¹What fruit then did you have at that time in the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. ²²But now, being made free from sin, having become slaves (“doulos”) to God, you have your fruit of sanctification, now the end eternal life.” (Romans 6:16-22)

In this, it is seen that, people are always “bound” – either of sin to death or obedience to righteousness (life). To be freed (loosed) from sin and death is to be bound to righteousness and life (and vice versa). Indeed, Christ bought His people with the price of His blood (Romans 6:20) such that His people are owned (slaves) of Him. For Scripture states that we, Christ’s people, “⁶have been discharged from the law, having died to that in which we were held (the penalty of sin which is death); so that we are enslaved in newness of the spirit, and not in oldness of the letter” (Romans 7:6).

Here is the new “binding”: The Lord’s Holy Spirit in which Christ’s people serve. But, someone might insist: “isn’t the definition of being ‘bound’ (‘deo’) the declaration of what is unlawful? Wouldn’t the word ‘bound’ (‘deo’) continue to indicate unlawfulness when one is “bound” to the Lord?” As Paul might say, may it never be so! For it has already been seen that “binding” has applied to unlawful as well as lawful situations (e.g. the bond of Love). It is the thing to which one is bound that determines whether the binding is “unlawful” or “lawful.” The law itself is Holy (Romans 7:12), so being bound to the Law in and of itself is not “unlawful.” It is breaking the law (sin) that is “unlawful.”

But, suppose a person is “bound” to something outside of the law – the law still existing, but not having a bearing on that person’s state of being “bound.” How can that binding be judged as unlawful if it is outside of the jurisdiction of the Law? It cannot. For, The Law “speaks to those under the Law” (Romans 3:19) – not to those who are not under it. What is not under the law? Scripture states:

“¹There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who don’t walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. ²For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and of death.” (Romans 8:1-2)

The Holy Spirit is not “under” the Law. Thus, if bound to the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, a person is free from the Law of sin and death. But, still a person is bound…bound to Christ through the Spirit. So, people are always bound? Where, then, is the release? Again, what is loosed? It is the end – the penalty of the Law of sin that is death – that is loosed…sent away (forgiven) – so that a new end would be realized, that is eternal life. God’s forgiveness, then, is the release, through Christ’s blood, of the penalty of sin which is death. Forgiveness is not, in actuality, the release of the person – for the person is always bound – either to the Law of sin/death or to the Law of Spirit/Life.

Returning to Matthew 16:19, with this line of thought in mind, it can be seen that Jesus did not give special binding/loosing privileges to Peter (nor his successors or any other disciples – neither at that time, nor through the ages) regarding other people’s positions on earth or in heaven. Rather, Jesus was indicating the giving of Himself and His Holy Spirit (the keys) for the binding of sin/loosing of the penalty of sin and the binding of the Holy Spirit for eternal life (and perhaps vice versa). Still…it seems as though Jesus was indicating that the binding/loosing is something Peter (at the very least) would be able to do directly. For the passage states, ‘whatever you (2^nd person singular – Peter) bind (“deo”) on earth will have been bound (“deo”) in heaven; and whatever you (2^nd person singular – Peter) release (“luo”) on earth will have been released (“luo”) in heaven. (Matthew 16:19). The truth of binding/loosing, and therefore concepts surrounding forgiveness, becomes clearer in the light of when and where binding and loosing happens…

2) When and where does forgiveness happen?

To understand the time and place of binding and loosing, the verb tenses in Matthew 16:19 must be analyzed. First, Jesus says, “I will give you the keys.” The word translated “will give” is in the future tense (not yet happened), indicative mood (made as a statement of fact that it will happen), and active voice (verifying that the subject, Jesus, will certainly do it). Moving to the next verb translated “bind,” this is in the aorist tense (involving no indication of whether the action is complete, incomplete, ongoing, or repetitive), the subjunctive mood (indicating what is possible, but not yet true), and active voice (verifying that the subject, Peter, would be the one to do what was being said as a possibility). The next verb is a conjugation of the verb “to be” (translated “will”). This is the future tense, indicative mood, and active voice – the same as the first verb. The verb points to the certainty of what is coming next…What comes next is the verb translated “have been bound.” This is the perfect tense (the binding action is completed – in heaven), a participle mood (links the timing of the main clause “whatever you bind on earth” to this verb – regarding heaven – without the element of actual observation), and the middle voice (the subject “whatever [you bind]” accomplishes and receives the binding action).

In all of this, it is seen that the binding action which might take place on earth is something that will have already been completed in heaven if it happens. Thus, the things of the heavenly realm appear to “precede” and condition the things of the earthly realm. The text goes on to reveal the same about loosing…indeed, the exact same sequence of verb conjugations appear. There is, in fact, a course of events in heaven which seem to have an antecedent correlation with respect to those that happen on earth. In other words, it seems that binding and loosing happen in heaven “first.”

Exploring, further, this idea that things happen in heaven “first,” the concept involves an inherent recognition of the chronology of time. However, the Lord is eternal, existing beyond the boundaries of time. The work, then, that the Lord seems to have “already done in heaven” is a human perception of what is an eternal reality. Jesus Christ, who is eternal, has bound sin by the shedding of His blood so that the penalty of death is paid…eternally. Though it appears to have happened in Christ’s 33^rd year of chronological time, a distant past to us at this point in chronological time, it actually happened in the eternal because it happened to the Lord…to the Eternal. So, what is true eternally, once seen as coming to pass on earth, appears to have happened “first” in heaven. Hence, the Lord’s prayer includes the idea that God’s people are to pray that His will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Yet, even for those who lived prior to Christ’s earthly life, the shedding of His blood could also be perceived as coming to pass “first” even though His earthly death had not yet happened in chronological time, for again, it is an Eternal Covenant (Hebrews 13:20) – applied throughout all time by faith in Christ’s blood (Romans 3:21-30 – note the word generally translated forbearance means “a release of punishment,” even as forgiveness has been defined, for sins committed before Christ died).

Stepping back, then, to re-read Matthew 16:19 with the knowledge that things will have happened eternally in heaven “first,” it is seen that whatever Peter (or anyone) would bind on earth will have already been bound in heaven, and whatever Peter (or anyone) would loose on earth will have already been loosed in heaven. God will have already done the work. This understanding reinforces the position that forgiveness is not based on human actions but on God’s work which is already realized eternally in heaven when it comes to be realized on earth.

But, how would Peter (or anyone) know that which is already bound or loosed in heaven in order to discern that which is correspondingly bound or loosed on earth? This question requires consideration of the last question: who is forgiven and why?

3) Who is forgiven and why?

So far it has been seen that God’s forgiveness is a release through Christ’s blood, of the penalty of sin which is death, and that this release happens via faith in the blood of the Eternal Covenant, appearing throughout chronological time as something that happens “first” in heaven. In other words, Peter, Christ’s disciples, and all who would come after them until the end of the age do not serve to release (forgive) sins with their own blood, but rather, serve as ambassadors on behalf of Christ to entreat people to be reconciled to God through His blood (2 Corinthians 5:14-20, Colossians 1:19-23). But, how are Christ’s agents to know what to say and what to do? Who is forgiven and who is not?

Discernment in this area comes through the Holy Spirit to which Peter (and all Christ’s people) would come to be bound once loosed from the penalty of sin through the blood of Christ. It is through a shared identity in the Holy Spirit that binding/loosing is discerned. For, Scripture reveals that Jesus considers the things that happen to each one of His people as if those things happen to Himself (See Matthew 25:31-46; Acts 9:4). So too, Scripture reveals that each one of Jesus’ people are identified with those things that happen to Him…His sufferings, His Death, His Resurrection, and His glorification etc (See John 15:18-21; Romans 6:3-8, 8:16-17). Therefore, if Jesus’ blood has bound sins as “unlawful” in the heavenly realms thereby “binding” those sins as “unlawful” in the earthly realm, it is through tight identity with Jesus – through His Holy Spirit – that Christ’s people on earth may recognize as much.

So, then, how does a person obtain Christ’s identity – His Holy Spirit – to gain this ability of discernment? Peter would later explain:

“‘³⁶Let all the house of Israel therefore know certainly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.’ ³⁷Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, ‘Brothers, what shall we do?’ ³⁸Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. ³⁹For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are far off, even as many as the Lord our God will call to himself.’” (Acts 2:36-39)

The Holy Spirit is given by God to everyone who repents and is baptized. Repentance and baptism are subjects which rightfully deserve their own thorough analyses in other documents. For the purposes of this document, however, it is important to emphasize that repentance properly means “to think with” (as in along with what Christ is thinking). In the context of what Peter was preaching in Acts 2, this “thinking with” involves agreeing with Christ about sin…that sin is “unlawful” and ought to be bound as Christ has bound it; it involves a change of mind – a turning away from sin toward the way God thinks about things (https://biblehub.com/greek/3340.htm). Repentance is not optional. The ability to repent (to change one’s mind about one’s sin) is another contentious issue tangential to the “free will vs. predestination” debates and is beyond the scope of this document; but again repentance must happen on earth in order for a person to receive the gift (the new binding) that is the Holy Spirit as per Acts 2:38.

Then, there is baptism. Again, this is a complicated and contentious subject. The definition of baptism is “to dip or submerge” according to https://biblehub.com/greek/907.htm. There are many denominational specific views regarding baptism, but the majority view baptism as either an act symbolizing that a person has died and been buried with Christ (going down into the water) and then risen in Christ (coming back up out of the water), or as an act that symbolizes the cleansing/washing away of sins. Most denominations stress that baptism is a demonstration of obedience and a public profession of faith and commitment to the Lord. While these views serve as an encouragement for people to be baptized, full understanding of the meaning of baptism is lost without the knowledge that “water,” when used as a symbol, indicates what is spirit – either good or bad (See also this author’s writings on Foundational principles of Interpreting the Bible). A person, then, being baptized in water is a person being “dipped/emerged in what is Spirit” – as if being inundated – even thoroughly overcome (taken over as a slave) by the Lord via the Holy Spirit.

Again, repentance and baptism are not optional. The former affirms the binding of sin through Christ’s work on the Cross – the shedding of His blood to release the penalty of sin from the sinner; in other words, repentant people are freed from the penalty of sin. The latter underscores that the sinner, once loosed from the penalty of sin is “bound” to the the Lord via the Holy Spirit for obedience to the Lord. This binding of sin/loosing of the penalty of sin (related to repentance) and corresponding binding to the Lord (baptism) is how the forgiveness of sins is actualized and the receiving of the Holy Spirit is realized on earth so that what is already true in heaven may be recognized.

But, it must be remembered that while we are on earth, even after receiving the Holy Spirit, there is still the potential for us to sin (though doing so ought to lead to quick repentance), and still the potential for sin to get in the way of proper judgment. Further, we cannot see the beginning and the end of all things. We do not know if someone who is currently sinning will turn to the Lord later in repentance, or if someone who is currently repentant will later be unrepentant. Therefore, if there is any question about our hearts or another person’s heart (either now or later, remembering that God’s Covenant is eternal – applied throughout all time) we must defer to the Lord. Jesus Christ always retains the final right to judge and sentence for all sins committed by all sinners throughout all time – for the price was paid in the Eternal Covenant (Again, see this author’s writing on Foundational principles for Interpreting the Bible). Christ, when He died, having taken the penalty for sins on himself, is the only One who is justified to impute or exonerate the penalty that He bore for those sins. Thus, upon imputing the penalty for sin, the Lord establishes His vengeance (Romans 12:19); and upon exonerating – dismissing/ sending away – the penalty for sin, the Lord establishes His forgiveness.

In light of God’s right to avenge or forgive, five scenarios related to human roles in forgiveness come to light. When considering these scenarios, the reader, in carefully considering which is his/her own role (believer or unbeliever in Christ; offender or offended), will be able to more clearly discern the requirements of forgiveness as situations arise in the earthly realm.

1) Unbelievers sinning against believers in Christ

The classic example of unbelievers sinning against one of Christ’s people is that of Stephen. This disciple was described as being “full of faith and power,” and he “performed great wonders and signs among the people.” (Acts 6:8). Stephen was so closely in tune with the Holy Spirit that it is written his enemies “weren’t able to withstand the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spoke.” (Acts 6:10). After false witnesses lied about Stephen, he was seized and made to defend himself before a religious council. Stephen boldly witnessed Jesus Christ as the Righteous One whom they murdered (Acts 7:52) at which time the Bible records the following sequence of events:

“⁵⁴Now when they [the council] heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed at him with their teeth. ⁵⁵But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, looked up steadfastly into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, ⁵⁶and said, ‘Behold, I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!’ ⁵⁷But they cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears, then rushed at him with one accord. ⁵⁸They threw him out of the city and stoned him. The witnesses placed their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul. ⁵⁹They stoned Stephen as he called out, saying, ‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!’ ⁶⁰He knelt down and cried with a loud voice, ‘Lord, don’t hold this sin against them!’ When he had said this, he fell asleep.” (Acts 7:54-60)

Much commentary has been written about the parallel between Stephen’s and Jesus’ pleas for their trespassers just before each of them died. For Jesus, while being crucified, said: “Father, forgive them, for they don’t know what they are doing.” (Luke 23:34)

Jesus was being crucified on earth by men, but He prayed to His Father in Heaven that those who were sinning against Him would be forgiven. At first, it looks like Jesus was forgiving everyone at the scene of His crucifixion regardless of faith or repentance. But, then, again, one must pause and ask: “Why didn’t Jesus just forgive them Himself since He retained His fully divine status? Why did He not directly look at those who were trespassing against him and say “Your sins are forgiven” as He did to the paralytic in Mark 2:5?

The difference appears to be related to faith and repentance. In the scenario with the paralytic, four friends took great lengths to win the paralytic’s time before Jesus, and the text specifically notes that Jesus saw their faith. The paralytic was lying on His mat, certainly a humiliating, powerless, position – as of a subject before a king…a position which traditionally could lead to the taking off of the subject’s head if the king so chose. On the other hand, during the moments of Jesus’ crucifixion, it would appear that those who put Him on the cross did not believe in Him as Lord and were not repentant of what they were actively doing. Without faith and repentance, Jesus would not directly forgive them. He would, however, submit them to His Father, who is in Heaven, so that if there would come a point in time on earth when any of His offenders might come to faith/repentance through His Holy Spirit, they might be forgiven.

Returning, then, to Stephen’s case, it appears that He correctly discerned the forgiveness requirements. Stephen did not know if any of his offenders would, in their earthly lives, come to faith/repentance in Jesus Christ. As such, Stephen committed them to the Lord in Heaven who took those sins on Himself and would have judged rightly (in full view of all time, all circumstance, all motivations of the heart) all the sins of those who might have (or might not have) come to repentance. In other words, Stephen sent away his right to judge and sentence the sins being committed against him just as the Lord sends away (forgives) his right to hold against Stephen his sins (forgives).

As it turns out, Saul (also called Paul), who would later become one of the primary tools in the Lord’s hands for witnessing the Gospel to both Jews and Gentiles, was there approving of Stephen’s death. If Stephen had not committed his right to judge/sentence to the Lord, He may have held fast his offenders’ sins in a way that was contrary to the Lord’s ultimate judgment/sentencing of Saul (Paul). Human judgment/sentencing that is contrary to the Lord’s ultimate judgment/sentencing demonstrates a lack of faith that God will work out what is right, and a lack of obedience to the Lord’s Sovereignty over all. If Stephen would have followed the path to hold on to his human judgment/sentencing, it would have resulted in God exercising His right to hold on to judgment/sentencing for Stephen for his lack of faith and obedience.

In this there is validation of the Scripture “forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors.” The Lord binds sin and unbinds sinners from the penalty of death in heaven “first” – that is in the Eternal. While the Lord knows who are his and has done His work in the Eternal, it is not always clear in the earthly realm and on a human level who might be repentant in the end. Therefore, it is fitting that the Lord’s people commit proper judgment/sentencing (forgiveness and unforgiveness) of sins to Him. Forgiveness, then, for the Lord’s people is not realized by forgiving sins directly…for, direct binding/loosing is God’s role – God’s forgiveness. Rather, the role of the Lord’s people in forgiveness is the willingness to send away their “right” to judge/sentence sin on a human level in the earthly realm in order to realize and agree with what God has already completed in the Eternal (which may be different from what seems to be true at a given point in chronological time). When God’s people do this, there is demonstration of faith and obedience to what the Lord has already rightfully worked out.

2) Believers in Christ sinning against an unbelievers

It is true that even though a person may have come to believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, that person may still sin – and the offenses may be against unbelievers or believers in Christ. Looking at an example of believers sinning against unbelievers, the following passage serves to highlight this type of scenario:

“⁵¹It came to pass, when the days were near that he should be taken up, he intently set his face to go to Jerusalem ⁵²and sent messengers before his face. They went and entered into a village of the Samaritans, so as to prepare for him. ⁵³They didn’t receive him, because he was traveling with his face set toward Jerusalem. ⁵⁴When his disciples, James and John, saw this, they said, ‘Lord, do you want us to command fire to come down from the sky and destroy them, just as Elijah did?’ ⁵⁵But he turned and rebuked them, ‘You don’t know of what kind of spirit you are. ⁵⁶For the Son of Man didn’t come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.’” (Luke 9:51-56)

The text specifically states that messengers had been sent into a Samaritan village. With some exceptions, the Samaritans would have been “unbelievers,” a statement reinforced by the fact that they did not receive Jesus as He traveled. James and John – presumably in defense of their master – offered to “command fire to come down from the sky” to destroy the Samaritans for not receiving Jesus. Rather than affirm them, Jesus turned and rebuked them. For Jesus to have spoken with such disapproval, James and John must have thought to act in a way not fitting to the situation – in other words, in a manner of sin.

So, what is rebuke and when is it appropriate? According to https://biblehub.com/greek/2008.htm, the word translated “rebuke” is “epitimao” from the root words “epi” meaning “on” and “timao” meaning “to assign value.” It is a verb that indicates putting a proper assessment (valuing/honoring) on a situation with the intention of correcting any improper assessment of a situation. With this in mind, it is seen that a rebuke inherently involves letting someone know that they are wrong about something. On a human level, rebuke may stem from an issue of fact or opinion (Romans 14:1). But, when a rebuke comes from the Lord, it is likely that the issue is not merely one of opinion. Jesus, knowing and living out the proper way before God, set an example by which His people may live – not for squabbling over things of opinion, but for properly chastising when necessary. In this situation, Jesus rightfully assessed that the Samaritan village ought not to be destroyed, and with this right assessment corrected James’ and John’s thought to do so.

Is rebuke ever inappropriate? Yes. A rebuke is inappropriate if the person rebuking is actually wrong about the assessment of a situation. For example, in the passage from Matthew 16, just after teaching about binding/loosing, Jesus started teaching that he would be killed and on the third day raised up. The text says that “²²Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, ‘Far be it from you, Lord! This will never be done to you.’” (Matthew 16:22) Peter’s rebuke (his assessment of the situation), however, was not appropriate because Jesus, then, turned to rebuke Peter saying, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, for you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of men.” (Matthew 16:23) So, Peter, while initiating rebuke, was actually the one in the wrong and ended up being rebuked for the error in his thinking.

There is something else to keep in mind. When considering an appropriately delivered rebuke by a believer, it is possible – even probable – that the rebuke might cause inflamed anger and increased propensity for sin rather than reasonable correction. This certainly was the case in the previous section. Stephen’s rebuke of his audience was necessary, for sin had been committed. But, to be the one to tell people that they were wrong for committing murder, and that they, in fact, murdered God, would have been a challenging thing to do. Yet, in obedience to the Spirit which filled him, Stephen testified. Sadly, the consequences of his testimony resulted in increased sin in those who did not believe…it resulted in another murder… that is, his own death. So, it is seen that proper attempts at correction of sin may not always go well for the one rebuking. But, it is still necessary to open up the potential for repentance and behavioral correction.

Turning back to look at the scenario where Jesus fittingly rebuked his disciples for their inappropriate attitudes against the Samaritan unbelievers, it is likely that the rebuke was more successful in changing James’ and John’s behavior. The rebuke of Christ toward James and John included a reminder to them of Christ’ purpose (to save) and the Spirit of which they would have been bound together – not only with other believers, but also potentially with those who, at that moment in chronological time, were unbelieving but might later have come to believe. Again, such rebuke is necessary to begin the turning toward right thinking – that is repentance – even as will be seen further in the next examples.

3) Believers in Christ sinning against believers in Christ

a) When there might be repentance

Again, even though a person may have come to believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, that person may still sin. When a believer sins against another believer, it is particularly heart breaking. Three examples demonstrate the process of forgiveness when an offended believer stands against an offending believer and repentance may or may not come into view. First is the situation between Peter and Paul at Antioch:

“⁸…for he [God] who worked through Peter in the apostleship with the circumcised also worked through me with the Gentiles— ⁹and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, those who were reputed to be pillars, gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcision. ¹⁰They only asked us to remember the poor—which very thing I was also zealous to do. ¹¹But when Peter came to Antioch, I resisted him to his face, because he stood condemned. ¹²For before some people came from James, he ate with the Gentiles. But when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. ¹³And the rest of the Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. ¹⁴But when I saw that they didn’t walk uprightly according to the truth of the Good News, I said to Peter before them all, ‘If you, being a Jew, live as the Gentiles do, and not as the Jews do, why do you compel the Gentiles to live as the Jews do? ¹⁵We, being Jews by nature and not Gentile sinners, ¹⁶yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because no flesh will be justified by the works of the law.’” (Galatians 2:8-16)

The foremost question is this: “Against whom was Peter – and the rest of the Jews who joined him – sinning?” The initial answer would be that he, and those following him, were sinning against Gentile Christians. But, because the Gentile Christians had also been justified by faith in Christ, being identified with Him, Peter’s and his cohort’s sin extended to Jesus. Indeed, the Gentile Christians were also covered by Christ’s blood which paid for their sins. To deny it, as Peter’s actions demonstrated, was to sin against the blood of Christ.

But, what gave Paul the right to stand against Peter? It wasn’t against Paul, perse, that Peter was sinning. Or was it? It has been asserted that “Jesus considers the things that happen to each one of His people as if those things happen to Himself. So too, Scripture reveals that each one of Jesus’ people are identified with those things that happen to Him.” But, even more than this, each person identified with Christ ought to not only identify with Him, but also to each other person identified with Him. That is, each “one out of the Body of Christ” is part of every other “one out of the Body of Christ” through the Holy Spirit, so that there should be no division in the Body that is the whole. This identification of Christ’s people with each other gave Paul the right – even the obligation – to stand up for fellow believers against those who were sinning against them.

The next question is: “How ought correction to happen?” Paul demonstrated the responsibility of a believer to rebuke the sin of another believer, even as was seen in the previous example with James and John. For, what follows the highlighted part of the passage above is chastisement from Paul toward Peter, and those following him. The goal of the rebuke was to prompt repentance for behavioral correction. In this case, Peter must have repented such that Paul gained back his brother in Christ. For Peter later wrote about mercy to those who previously had not been a people (Gentiles; 1 Peter 2:10) and refers to Paul as “our beloved brother Paul” who wrote with wisdom (2 Peter 3:15-16).

In the period of time before Peter repented, Paul would have been right to commit to the Lord the binding of Peter’s sin. He would have been right to “send away” his license to judge/sentence so that the Lord’s ultimate judgment/sentencing might be recognized. For Paul would not have known if/when Peter would repent. But, once Peter repented, it would have been incumbent upon Paul to agree with the Lord in His forgiveness of him. For Scriptures states that “If your brother sins against you, rebuke him (which Paul did) and if he repents (which Peter did), forgive him (which we suspect Paul would have done).” (Luke 17:3)

This example of the sin of a believer against other believers reveals that such situations call for the offended to rebuke the offender, urge him/her to repent, and then commit the situation to the Lord in wait for Him to reveal what He has rightfully worked out in the Eternal. This last step is in keeping with the role of the offended in the process of forgiveness so that may what is true in the heavenly realm be realized in the earthly realm. For it is in “committing the situation to the Lord” that the offended party “sends away his/her right to judge/sentence sin on a human level in the earthly realm in order to realize what God has already completed in the heavenly realm.” And it is in “waiting on the Lord” that the offended believer demonstrates agreement with the Lord in faith that the Lord really has worked out what is right in the Eternal so that His will would be done “on earth as it is in heaven.”

Thus, the path to restoration of relationships for believers, who will certainly, at times, continue to sin against each other in the earthly realm, is through rebuke for the possibility of genuine repentance. In the case between Peter and Paul, it appears the rebuke/call to repentance was successful in that Peter appears to have responded, in time, with “fruit in keeping with repentance” as seen in his writings. But what if there is more ambiguity?

b) When repentance is questionable

From Biblical and extra-Biblical accounts, Peter and Paul were steadfast in Christ, walking by the Spirit, in continual repentance/service of the Lord to the end of their lives. But, other situations between believers in Christ have not been so clear. One example is the situation with Simon the sorcerer:

“⁹But there was a certain man, Simon by name, who used to practice sorcery in the city and amazed the people of Samaria, making himself out to be some great one…¹⁰to whom they all listened, from the least to the greatest, saying, ‘This man is that great power of God.’ ¹¹They listened to him because for a long time he had amazed them with his sorceries. 12But when they believed Philip preaching good news concerning God’s Kingdom and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. ¹³Simon himself also believed. Being baptized, he continued with Philip. Seeing signs and great miracles occurring, he was amazed. ¹⁴Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, ¹⁵who, when they had come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit; ¹⁶for as yet he had fallen on none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of Christ Jesus. ¹⁷Then they laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. ¹⁸Now when Simon saw that the Holy Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, ¹⁹saying, ‘Give me also this power, that whomever I lay my hands on may receive the Holy Spirit.’ ²⁰But Peter said to him, ‘May your silver (“argurion”) perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money (“chrema”)! ²¹You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart isn’t right before God. ²²Repent therefore of this, your wickedness, and ask God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you. ²³For I see that you are in the poison of bitterness and in the bondage of iniquity.’ ²⁴Simon answered, ‘Pray for me to the Lord, that none of the things which you have spoken happen to me.’” (Acts 8:9-24)

In this scenario, the Bible clearly states that Simon believed and was baptized (vs 13). Setting aside, for the purposes of this document, the controversy regarding the idea that one may be baptized and not yet have received the Holy Spirit, there must be a focus on what was Simon’s sin. The text states, “when Simon saw that the Holy Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money…that whomever I lay my hands on may receive the Holy Spirit.” How was this a sin?

First, it must be understood what Simon was desiring. What is the “laying on of hands”? As has been written by this author in the document of “Symbolism,” the hand symbolizes works/deeds done within the scope one’s domain/sphere of influence. So, Simon wanted “the ability of giving Holy Spirit (works/deeds)” to be within the scope of his domain/sphere of influence. But, Peter, knowing Simon had not received the Holy Spirit, knew therefore, that he had “neither part nor lot” in the matter (vs 16). Peter and the other disciples were able to confer the Spirit upon other people because they already had, in their domain/sphere of influence, the Holy Spirit within themselves. But, Simon could not confer what he did not have.

Analyzing further, the fact that Simon wanted to pay money for the power to transfer the Holy Spirit to others reveals that He didn’t understand the work of Christ, and the gift of God. For, Peter used two words related to money – leading to two lines of reasoning regarding Simon’s sin – in his chastisement of Simon:

The first word Peter used related to money was the word “argurion” translated silver. Silver was specifically required to make restitution when someone accidentally sinned against Yahweh’s holy things (Leviticus 5:15-16). Proper restitution, however, involved adding 1/5 part to it (20%) which is the number of redemption – the part Jesus paid with His blood. As has been seen, repentance is the path of agreeing with Christ about the unlawfulness/binding of sin…the way in which Jesus’ blood is applied to pay the penalty of sin which is death. Peter called Simon to repent, for he saw that, for Simon, the “1/5 part (20%) silver (Christ’s part)” had not been added in order to make proper restitution. So, despite belief and baptism, Simon still had not repented to be free of the “bondage of iniquity.” In other words, Simon was not yet bound to the Lord for he was still bound by the penalty of sin.

The second word Peter used related to money was the same word Simon used, “chrema,” which is what is used to gain possession of things in the earthly realm. But, the Holy Spirit cannot be gained or manipulated by any earthly means. The Sprit is not earned, not purchased; but, rather the Spirit is gifted by Christ, the Son, from the Father (John 14:26, 15:26). To try to gain or force the Spirit in a way other than through the Lord’s gifting is to perish. For, the gifting correlates with the Lord’s forgiveness of sins. The forcing, without the forgiveness of sins, brings God’s wrath. If Simon’s desire had actually come to pass, then he would have faced God without forgiveness. Hence, Peter appropriately said “may your silver perish with you,” and “may the thought of your heart be forgiven you.”

So, it is seen that Peter appropriately rebuked Simon and called him to repentance. But did he repent? It is questionable. The text, in terms of what happened in the immediate, reveals what looks like repentance, at least temporarily, when Simon said to Peter, “Pray for me to the Lord, that none of the things which you have spoken happen to me.” There is no additional indication directly from the Bible as to what happened to Simon – whether he continued in repentance, perished in sin, or wavered between sin and forgiveness. Extra-Biblically, there are several accounts of what may have happened to Simon, but his end seems to be unverifiable.

Nevertheless, at the time of Peter’s chastisement, there would have remained opportunity for Simon to repent – otherwise Peter would not have called him to such. Peter, then, having rebuked Simon and called him to repentance, would have been expected to commit the situation to the Lord in wait for Him to reveal what He has rightfully worked out in the Eternal. Even if Simon was wavering, and repented as many as seventy times seven, then Peter would have been expected to forgive (send away his right to judge/sentence) just as much (Matthew 18:22). But, what if it is clear that there is no repentance?

c) When it is absolutely clear that there is no repentance

The previous two examples showed the need for rebuke and repentance – the first scenario illustrating the requirements related to forgiveness where there is clear repentance, and the second where there is questionable repentance. There is a third potential scenario…the situation in which there is clearly no repentance. Ananias and Sapphira serve as an example of such a scenario:

“³¹When they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were gathered together. They were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke the word of God with boldness. ³²The multitude of those who believed were of one heart and soul. Not one of them claimed that anything of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. ³³With great power, the apostles gave their testimony of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. Great grace was on them all. ³⁴For neither was there among them any who lacked, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, ³⁵and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and distribution was made to each, according as anyone had need. ³⁶Joses, who by the apostles was also called Barnabas (which is, being interpreted, Son of Encouragement), a Levite, a man of Cyprus by race, ³⁷having a field, sold it and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet. ¹But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, ²and kept back part of the price, his wife also being aware of it, then brought a certain part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. ³But Peter said, ‘Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the price of the land? ⁴While you kept it, didn’t it remain your own? After it was sold, wasn’t it in your power? How is it that you have conceived this thing in your heart? You haven’t lied to men, but to God.’ ⁵Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and died. Great fear came on all who heard these things. ⁶The young men arose and wrapped him up, and they carried him out and buried him. ⁷About three hours later, his wife, not knowing what had happened, came in. ⁸Peter answered her, ‘Tell me whether you sold the land for so much.’ She said, ‘Yes, for so much.’ ⁹But Peter asked her, ‘How is it that you have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.’ ¹⁰She fell down immediately at his feet and died. The young men came in and found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her by her husband. ¹¹Great fear came on the whole assembly, and on all who heard these things.” (Acts 4:31-511)

This text follows the incident when Peter and John had been put in the custody of the authorities overnight in order to face the rulers, elders, and scribes of Israel the next morning to determine their fate for healing a lame person and “proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead” (Acts 4:2-6). After being questioned and threatened, the disciples were released and “returned to their own company” (Acts 4:23). This “company,” then, according to this text, prayed, and the place where they were gathered together was shaken. Further, this company was specifically said to be “filled with the Holy Spirit.” (vs 31). Next it is mentioned that the “multitude of those who believed were of one heart and soul” – a state which is rare…neigh impossible…without the binding together of the Holy Spirit from verse 31. It was this group of people who shared everything, including possessions.

It is in the context of this group of people who were filled with the Holy Spirit and were one in heart and soul (and possessions), that the incident with Ananias and Sapphira is recorded. The group was considered as “one.” The concept of a person being “one” with any other person (nonetheless a multitude of people realizing this state) is only possible through the Holy Spirit. Ananias and Sapphira were part of this “one” Body that has been redeemed by Christ’s blood (freed from the penalty of sin which is death) – identified with Christ – and bound to the Lord through the Spirit. That this couple is counted as part of the group – filled with the Holy Spirit, being one in heart and soul, and not claiming “that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common” is clear when they were motivated to sell a possession and lay money from it at the Apostles’ feet just as others in the group – notably Barnabas – had done.

But, they kept part of the money back for themselves (vs 2). Again, as with the previous scenario, money was involved where sin occurred. As has been stated, money is what is used to gain possession of things in the earthly realm. It is unknown as to how much of the money Ananias and Sapphira agreed to keep back for themselves, but they made it seem (and Sapphira even confirmed) as if they had given the full amount when they had not. The part of the money that they held back, then, was a part separated from the group – separated from the “one.”

But, to be separated from the “one” means that there was separation, then, from the Holy Spirit. Again, it has been stated that to be freed (loosed) from sin and death is to be bound to righteousness and life. But, then, to be freed (loosed) from righteousness and life is to be bound to sin and death. While much controversy revolves around whether Ananias and Sapphira were actually filled with the Holy Spirit, their end dictates that they must have, in fact, been bound as such. For when Peter confronts them with their sin – the sin of unbinding (loosing) something from the group identified with Christ through the Spirit, there was immediate death…so, it was proved that, indeed, loosing from righteousness and life – breaking the bonds of the Holy Spirit – means binding to sin and death.

There are those who might contend that Ananias and Sapphira were not filled with the Holy Spirit. But these, then, must explain why the Lord would have allowed the penalty of death without a chance to repent. Indeed, there was no call to repent, barely time to for each to comprehend the truth of what Peter had spoken and the connection with what Jesus had taught…“³²Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age, or in that which is to come.” (Matthew 12:32). Therefore, repentance for sins against Jesus, the Son, are forgiven in the Eternal covenant (the penalty paid by His blood) and re-repentance in the earthly realm may be necessary even up to seventy times seven. But, loosing from the Holy Spirit – breaking the bond of baptism – reinstates the penalty of death and is not forgiven.

In summary the following has been discerned:

1. Everyone is bound to the law which reveals disobedience/sin.

2. A person, being bound to the Law will inevitably break (loose) the law (Romans 3:23), and therefore, become bound to the penalty of breaking the law – the penalty of sin which is death.

3. Sin is what needs to be “bound as unlawful” through the death/blood of Christ so that sinners may be loosed from the penalty of sin which is death.

4. Once sin is “bound” (declared unlawful) and the sinner loosed from the penalty of sin through the shedding of Christ’s blood, the sinner is in bondage to the Lord through the Holy Spirit.

5. God’s forgiveness is the release, through Christ’s blood, of the penalty of sin which is death Forgiveness is not, in actuality, the release of the person – for the person is always bound – either to the Law of sin/death or to the Law of Spirit/Life.

6. The binding (and loosing) action which might take place on earth is something that will have already been completed in heaven if it happens. God will have already done the work in the Eternal when things are realized in chronological time.

7. It is through a shared identity in the Holy Spirit, received upon repentance and baptism, that binding/loosing is discerned such that there may be agreement with the work the Lord has done in the Eternal.

8. The role of the Lord’s people in forgiveness, is the willingness to defer to the Lord…to “send away” the right to judge/sentence sin on a human level in the earthly realm…in order to realize and agree with what God has already completed in the Eternal.

9. Repentance, meaning “to think with” (as in along with what Christ is thinking), affirms the binding of sin through Christ’s work on the Cross – the shedding of His blood to release the penalty of sin from the sinner (repentant people are released from the penalty to sin). Repentance is not optional.

10. Baptism, meaning “to dip or submerge,” symbolizes the oncoming binding of the Lord underscoring the fact that the sinner, once loosed from the penalty of sin is still “bound” – but bound to the the Lord via the Holy Spirit for obedience to Life. Baptism is not optional.

11. If there is any question about our hearts or another persons heart (either now or later remembering that God’s Covenant is eternal, applied throughout all time) we must defer to the Lord.

12. Appropriate rebuke, where there is sin, is necessary to prompt repentance and correction of behavior.

13. Repentance for sins against Jesus, the Son, are forgiven in the Eternal covenant (the penalty paid by His blood); thus, re-repentance even to seventy times seven in the earthly realm may be necessary. But, loosing from the Holy Spirit – breaking the bond of baptism – reinstates the penalty of death and is not forgiven.