Why do Christians ignore Matthew 5:23-24

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

drivenfuture

New Member
Jan 8, 2023
13
5
3
40
Jacksonville
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
So, time and time again, I've noticed Christians say we must only forgive our brother and vice versa, and that forgiveness is optional. However, when reading this passage, it seems abundantly clear that reconciliation must take priority above most things, to the point of we shouldn't even tithe until we have restored our relationships. Now, there is a little caveat here in that Augustinian taught that reconciliation wasn't needed due to having to travel over seas to do so. However, with the technological advancements like the Internet, contacting someone has never been easier, yet Christians still refuse to reconcile, stating that forgiveness is enough.

The thing is, I cannot fathom God forgiving us without reconciliation, and therefore, cannot fathom His desire for us to be any different.
Now, I find myself always saying things like there are certain sins where reconciliation doesn't make sense, but then I got to thinking - Paul instructed the Corinthians to reconcile with a man who committed incest. That seems like a pretty big sin if you ask me.

When I make statements like "I understand those big sins," I'm generally referring to abuse and rape, and not that I'm promoting it, but those things were fairly commonplace back then, and I dare say physical abuse was just a normal part of life back then. I'm not suggesting we revert, I'm just having trouble understanding where we got the idea that we don't need to reconcile Christian relationships with a truly repentant brother/sister in Christ.

Of note, I want to state I wrote a post previously that had more to do with a personal experience, whereas this is aimed getting theological/biblical input.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Keturah

Randy Kluth

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2020
7,623
2,337
113
Pacific NW
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
So, time and time again, I've noticed Christians say we must only forgive our brother and vice versa, and that forgiveness is optional. However, when reading this passage, it seems abundantly clear that reconciliation must take priority above most things, to the point of we shouldn't even tithe until we have restored our relationships. Now, there is a little caveat here in that Augustinian taught that reconciliation wasn't needed due to having to travel over seas to do so. However, with the technological advancements like the Internet, contacting someone has never been easier, yet Christians still refuse to reconcile, stating that forgiveness is enough.

The thing is, I cannot fathom God forgiving us without reconciliation, and therefore, cannot fathom His desire for us to be any different.
Now, I find myself always saying things like there are certain sins where reconciliation doesn't make sense, but then I got to thinking - Paul instructed the Corinthians to reconcile with a man who committed incest. That seems like a pretty big sin if you ask me.

When I make statements like "I understand those big sins," I'm generally referring to abuse and rape, and not that I'm promoting it, but those things were fairly commonplace back then, and I dare say physical abuse was just a normal part of life back then. I'm not suggesting we revert, I'm just having trouble understanding where we got the idea that we don't need to reconcile Christian relationships with a truly repentant brother/sister in Christ.

Of note, I want to state I wrote a post previously that had more to do with a personal experience, whereas this is aimed getting theological/biblical input.
Reconciliation is a matter of making things right in our own heart with God. We should *always* do that. If the opportunity exists, we should make right when we have wronged a brother or sister. If the other is not receptive to that, our obligation is complete.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nancy

drivenfuture

New Member
Jan 8, 2023
13
5
3
40
Jacksonville
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Reconciliation is a matter of making things right in our own heart with God. We should *always* do that. If the opportunity exists, we should make right when we have wronged a brother or sister. If the other is not receptive to that, our obligation is complete.
So, from what I see, we have to differentiate between repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation, but without separating them. What you described seems more like the other unwilling party is not forgiving you. This is actually sort of the situation I'm referring to; however, most Christians in this case say they are forgiving but do not wish to reconcile. When I hear this, I cannot understand such a thing. To me, unwilling to reconcile also means unwilling to forgive. Because as long as you are unwilling to associate with a person, it must mean that you are still remembering something that person did.
 

Randy Kluth

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2020
7,623
2,337
113
Pacific NW
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
So, from what I see, we have to differentiate between repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation, but without separating them. What you described seems more like the other unwilling party is not forgiving you. This is actually sort of the situation I'm referring to; however, most Christians in this case say they are forgiving but do not wish to reconcile. When I hear this, I cannot understand such a thing. To me, unwilling to reconcile also means unwilling to forgive. Because as long as you are unwilling to associate with a person, it must mean that you are still remembering something that person did.
Yes, you cannot force a reconciliation with someone. You can certainly be willing *in your heart* to reconcile. But you cannot make it happen simply by declaring your willingness to do so.

I'm actually going through a lot of these situations right now, though I'm not going to get too personal and spell out what they are. I can forgive, but not at the expense of truth. The party I've wronged by getting too angry will not benefit from my apologies, because what they are really after is my confession that they are innocent of wrong doing. And they are indeed very guilty of wrong-doing, and only wish to cover up their misdeeds.

To want to reconcile is one thing, and to impose reconciliation is another thing. Reconciliation requires that both parties come to terms as to what a realistic relationship looks like.

I have Christian brothers and sisters who are of a different political party than I am. Some have made it an issue, and some have not. Those who make it an issue have lied about me, have separated from me. I may or may not have wronged them by getting too animated--I have to search my heart, and keep my heart pure with God.

But even after I've purified my heart, by analyzing the truth and being willing to repent, that doesn't mean I can reconcile with those who've wronged me and my wife. We've been burned for thousands of dollars, and I realize that money isn't everything. All sins are forgivable.

But when the parties who wrong you refuse to acknowledge their sins against you, and want you to admit you're wrong so that they cover up their own wrongs, we shouldn't do that. Your discussion of the subject seems a bit naïve, indicating to me that you're dealing with light matters that largely have to do with communication and smaller matters like that. We can always clean up the way we treat others.

But when it comes to higher matters of lots of money, injustice, perhaps even physical violence, and such things, reconciliation requires that all parties take responsibility and not lay all the responsibility on one side. If the major crimes were committed by one party, the wronged party should not have to make reconciliation about giving a free pass to the wrong-doer!

We are told Christians are all about forgiveness, and justice is all about God, and that we shouldn't mix the two? We should just let wrongs go, forgive them, and maintain relations unconditionally, without dealing with matters of justice?

This is totally wrong-headed. Jesus only concerned himself with us dealing with our sins 1st, but without neglecting justice. With God, both forgiveness and justice are matters in which all men and women are to be engaged in. Reconciliation cannot take place when those who do wrong are given a false pass!

All wrongs have to be dealt with. In disputable matters, we do have to be willing to lay those aside for a time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nancy and Keturah

360watt

Active Member
Jun 6, 2020
174
84
28
45
Christchurch
Faith
Christian
Country
New Zealand
So, from what I see, we have to differentiate between repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation, but without separating them. What you described seems more like the other unwilling party is not forgiving you. This is actually sort of the situation I'm referring to; however, most Christians in this case say they are forgiving but do not wish to reconcile. When I hear this, I cannot understand such a thing. To me, unwilling to reconcile also means unwilling to forgive. Because as long as you are unwilling to associate with a person, it must mean that you are still remembering something that person did.

Reading how God desires unity in a local church, forgiveness and reconciliation would be a great part of that. Members having care for each-other, together, interconnected.. a solid unit for Jesus.

There does come a point though where the sin in another member becomes a real problem and they need to be disciplined according to the Matthew 18 process. 'Where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am with them' In Matthew 18:20..

Is about resolving sin issues in a local church setting. That is the context.

This discipline.. doesn't mean they haven't been forgiven by those offended by their sin.. it means there is a consequence for the sin that they must accept. There is still grace in this truth.. the member would not have lost salvation, but close fellowship with Jesus and their local church.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Randy Kluth

Randy Kluth

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2020
7,623
2,337
113
Pacific NW
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Reading how God desires unity in a local church, forgiveness and reconciliation would be a great part of that. Members having care for each-other, together, interconnected.. a solid unit for Jesus.

There does come a point though where the sin in another member becomes a real problem and they need to be disciplined according to the Matthew 18 process. 'Where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am with them' In Matthew 18:20..

Is about resolving sin issues in a local church setting. That is the context.

This discipline.. doesn't mean they haven't been forgiven by those offended by their sin.. it means there is a consequence for the sin that they must accept. There is still grace in this truth.. the member would not have lost salvation, but close fellowship with Jesus and their local church.
The only problem here is that some in the church who are nominally Christian, and hiding wickedness within, show by their lack of repentance that they do not want grace. There cannot be reconciliation with them, even if they call themselves Christians, when they do not repent. I feel you will agree?

I'm not here talking about small sins, and matters of communication or of questionable disputation. I'm talking about gross immorality, extortion, and the matter of slandering and maligning other Christians.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Keturah

360watt

Active Member
Jun 6, 2020
174
84
28
45
Christchurch
Faith
Christian
Country
New Zealand
The only problem here is that some in the church who are nominally Christian, and hiding wickedness within, show by their lack of repentance that they do not want grace. There cannot be reconciliation with them, even if they call themselves Christians, when they do not repent. I feel you will agree?

I'm not here talking about small sins, and matters of communication or of questionable disputation. I'm talking about gross immorality, extortion, and the matter of slandering and maligning other Christians.

Well, if they are actually already saved.. then that would still stand.. that's the grace part. But.. they would get kicked out of their local church ..excommunicated if they would not listen and change. That's the last part of the Matthew 18 process. 'Let them be a publican'.. that's kicking them out of the church.

The people offended may still have forgiven them personally.. but that consequence is laid down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gospel Believer

drivenfuture

New Member
Jan 8, 2023
13
5
3
40
Jacksonville
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The only problem here is that some in the church who are nominally Christian, and hiding wickedness within, show by their lack of repentance that they do not want grace. There cannot be reconciliation with them, even if they call themselves Christians, when they do not repent. I feel you will agree?

I'm not here talking about small sins, and matters of communication or of questionable disputation. I'm talking about gross immorality, extortion, and the matter of slandering and maligning other Christians.
Yes I believe I would mostly agree that unrepentance is grounds for no reconciliation; this is particularly why I believe it's still ok to not reconcile with abusers - because it is almost always a pattern with no real change. Now, should there be a case where an abuser came to Christ and did change, well, that would be a different story, but one I have come across, so I can't really say how I would handle it tbh. Culturally speaking, I think most people agree with the extreme sins are grounds for ending relationships; but biblically speaking, I'm not so sure it was intended - mainly due to Paul instructing the Corinthians to restore, AND COMFORT, a man who committed incest regularly, and then repented. So, I'm not so convinced that God's desire was for us not to be reconciled to truly repentant people.
 

Randy Kluth

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2020
7,623
2,337
113
Pacific NW
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Well, if they are actually already saved.. then that would still stand.. that's the grace part. But.. they would get kicked out of their local church ..excommunicated if they would not listen and change. That's the last part of the Matthew 18 process. 'Let them be a publican'.. that's kicking them out of the church.

The people offended may still have forgiven them personally.. but that consequence is laid down.
Right, but in my experience church leadership rarely wants to apply discipline by kicking members out of their church. I have stories....
 

Randy Kluth

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2020
7,623
2,337
113
Pacific NW
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Yes I believe I would mostly agree that unrepentance is grounds for no reconciliation; this is particularly why I believe it's still ok to not reconcile with abusers - because it is almost always a pattern with no real change. Now, should there be a case where an abuser came to Christ and did change, well, that would be a different story, but one I have come across, so I can't really say how I would handle it tbh. Culturally speaking, I think most people agree with the extreme sins are grounds for ending relationships; but biblically speaking, I'm not so sure it was intended - mainly due to Paul instructing the Corinthians to restore, AND COMFORT, a man who committed incest regularly, and then repented. So, I'm not so convinced that God's desire was for us not to be reconciled to truly repentant people.
I think the problem here is with the word "reconciliation" The man Paul wanted restored had repented. Prior to that he had not, and Paul demanded that the Corinthians excommunicate him. That is *not* reconciliation!
 

360watt

Active Member
Jun 6, 2020
174
84
28
45
Christchurch
Faith
Christian
Country
New Zealand
Right, but in my experience church leadership rarely wants to apply discipline by kicking members out of their church. I have stories....

Yes, I think we all do. Applying the process for discipline rarely happens. I have been through it myself though as the person being disciplined.
 

Randy Kluth

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2020
7,623
2,337
113
Pacific NW
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Yes, I think we all do. Applying the process for discipline rarely happens. I have been through it myself though as the person being disciplined.
Yea, it could happen to any of us. We're all contaminated by sin, and we all sin to some degree. It is only when someone is recalcitrant and resistant to change that someone should be "shown the door." And the motive is to bring the person back to the right state of mind, to genuine repentance, and for the purpose of restoring relationships with everybody in the church.

Reconciliation requires this process. Refusal to discipline leads to greater laxity, and eventually to compromise and to a complete dilution of the Gospel message. Consider the Priest Eli and the children he allowed to fornicate in the temple! If someone had confronted them, they may have avoided the death penalty.

Thanks for your honesty. Your original point is correct. Our motive needs to be to cover our own bases first, and then seek to reconcile with someone at odds with us. It should become clear if there is continued hostility and resistance to forgiveness. Sometimes it's enough to just see some humility and flexibility.
 

BARNEY BRIGHT

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2017
4,032
1,119
113
67
Thomaston Georgia
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Yea, it could happen to any of us. We're all contaminated by sin, and we all sin to some degree. It is only when someone is recalcitrant and resistant to change that someone should be "shown the door." And the motive is to bring the person back to the right state of mind, to genuine repentance, and for the purpose of restoring relationships with everybody in the church.

Reconciliation requires this process. Refusal to discipline leads to greater laxity, and eventually to compromise and to a complete dilution of the Gospel message. Consider the Priest Eli and the children he allowed to fornicate in the temple! If someone had confronted them, they may have avoided the death penalty.

Thanks for your honesty. Your original point is correct. Our motive needs to be to cover our own bases first, and then seek to reconcile with someone at odds with us. It should become clear if there is continued hostility and resistance to forgiveness. Sometimes it's enough to just see some humility and flexibility.
Another word for this is disfellowshipping. This is done when a Christian who has committed a gross sin, and is unrepented. For example, A Christian woman/man who is married having an affair but refuses to stop the affair after been caught in the affair. Now disfellowshipping is a last resort, those taking the lead in the congregation(the elders) will try their best to convince a Christian practicing such a gross sin to repent. But after trying their best to convince a Christian in a loving compassionate manner he/she needs to repent but he/she choose not to repent and continue having the affair then that particular Christian leaves the elders no choice but to disfellowship them.
 

charity

Well-Known Member
Nov 26, 2017
3,234
3,192
113
75
UK
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
So, time and time again, I've noticed Christians say we must only forgive our brother and vice versa, and that forgiveness is optional. However, when reading this passage, it seems abundantly clear that reconciliation must take priority above most things, to the point of we shouldn't even tithe until we have restored our relationships. Now, there is a little caveat here in that Augustinian taught that reconciliation wasn't needed due to having to travel over seas to do so. However, with the technological advancements like the Internet, contacting someone has never been easier, yet Christians still refuse to reconcile, stating that forgiveness is enough.

The thing is, I cannot fathom God forgiving us without reconciliation, and therefore, cannot fathom His desire for us to be any different.
Now, I find myself always saying things like there are certain sins where reconciliation doesn't make sense, but then I got to thinking - Paul instructed the Corinthians to reconcile with a man who committed incest. That seems like a pretty big sin if you ask me.

When I make statements like "I understand those big sins," I'm generally referring to abuse and rape, and not that I'm promoting it, but those things were fairly commonplace back then, and I dare say physical abuse was just a normal part of life back then. I'm not suggesting we revert, I'm just having trouble understanding where we got the idea that we don't need to reconcile Christian relationships with a truly repentant brother/sister in Christ.

Of note, I want to state I wrote a post previously that had more to do with a personal experience, whereas this is aimed getting theological/biblical input.
'Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar,
and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way;
first be reconciled to thy brother,
and then come and offer thy gift.
(Mat 5:23-24)

Hi there,@drivenfuture,

I find it interesting that it is not a matter here of a person having, 'ought against his brother' but if, 'thy brother hath ought against thee'. If a brother has cause to be offended because of something you/I have done or said: and not because that brother has done or said anything to offend ourselves.

So it is for us to seek forgiveness for a word or action of our own, which has caused offence to our brother. We are to seek reconciliation with an offended brother.

The offending is ours, and not his. It is we who are blameworthy and not him. We would be seeking forgiveness, and not offering it.

Just thoughts.
Thank you.
In Christ Jesus
Chris
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: marks

Randy Kluth

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2020
7,623
2,337
113
Pacific NW
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Another word for this is disfellowshipping. This is done when a Christian who has committed a gross sin, and is unrepented. For example, A Christian woman/man who is married having an affair but refuses to stop the affair after been caught in the affair. Now disfellowshipping is a last resort, those taking the lead in the congregation(the elders) will try their best to convince a Christian practicing such a gross sin to repent. But after trying their best to convince a Christian in a loving compassionate manner he/she needs to repent but he/she choose not to repent and continue having the affair then that particular Christian leaves the elders no choice but to disfellowship them.
This is true. It is very difficult for some Christians to learn love from Christ and then confront someone with sin. And so yes, normally it would be elders, who have some experience, who lead in this process. It is very tempting for the younger or undisciplined Christian to confront someone else in their sin without appearing to be harsh and judgmental. But true love would save someone from certain judgment from God. And this is not just eternal judgment but also many things God will do to bring someone to a place of repentance. We would save them from this!
 

BARNEY BRIGHT

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2017
4,032
1,119
113
67
Thomaston Georgia
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
This is true. It is very difficult for some Christians to learn love from Christ and then confront someone with sin. And so yes, normally it would be elders, who have some experience, who lead in this process. It is very tempting for the younger or undisciplined Christian to confront someone else in their sin without appearing to be harsh and judgmental. But true love would save someone from certain judgment from God. And this is not just eternal judgment but also many things God will do to bring someone to a place of repentance. We would save them from this!
Hopefully even if a Christian is disfellowshipped, he/she will eventually snap themselves out of such a unrepented sinful course and get themselves reinstated back into the congregation. They of course would have to show the elders that they have repented of their sinful course.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Randy Kluth