Power to express a forgiveness or the lack of forgivenness

Only recently was I made familiar with the ff. song from the Go-go's, 

http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2011/07/go-gos-this-town-cant-stop-world-tonite.html

and I was fascinated by the concept of the lyrics in "Unforgiven". 

 

Always tryin' to clean up my catastrophes
Taking full responsibility
Living my life like every day is the last
Remodeling the wreckage of my past

But when it comes to you
I know I said I do
But I don't, no I don't

You're unforgiven so go on living
Knowing that I've unforgiven you
And my thanksgiving
Came the day I saw it was okay
To unforgive you

Confessing every sin doesn't make me a saint
Even though it's obvious I've changed
Once I forgave you but I did not forget
Now I'm taking back everything I said

You're unforgiven so go on living
Knowing that I've unforgiven you
And my thanksgiving
Came the day I saw it was okay
To unforgive you

 This leads into an area of discussion about whether or not we have the right to NOT forgive outwardly on principle. 

Some argue that the believer does not have a right to NOT forgive sins and wrongs done to them, so that they may be continual victims to be trampled...be they abuses by corruption inside or outside the Church...or that the Founding Fathers had no Biblical justification to take up arms as a last earthly resort.  But is that the case?  Not hardly.   

By example, War is a condoned action in the Bible under rigid circumstances, and the Bible tells us that the LORD / YHVeH is a man of war.  But that is a subject for another time. 

In Matthew 16:19 and John 20:23, we read two essential passages regarding the rights of a Born-again Christian to NOT forgive sins committed against them personally, if they have a mind to...but the intent is that they not abuse the privilege, or be led astray by what a state of constant unforgiving will do to their soul.  While we may have an inward action that constantly forgives, our outward action, in order to fulfill righteousness and to NOT condone evil, allows us to be empowered to a state of conditional unforgiveness in order to see righteousness or justice fulfilled.  I personally have in mind the widow who hounded the unrighteous and unbelieving judge day and night  until he brought about justice for her, and this example was how Jesus refers believers into him how to pray.

Luke 18

 ¹And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;

 ²Saying, There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man:

 ³And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary.

 ⁴And he would not for a while: but afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man;

 ⁵Yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.

 ⁶And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith.

 ⁷And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?

 ⁸I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

Therefore, we see that the widow rightly used a refusal to forgive in regard to one issue, and to achieve justice for herself in accordance with her prayers and determination via the Court of her day.  

In getting back to Matthew 16:19 and John 20:23...

Matthew 16:19

 δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖδας τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν, 

καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἐσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, 

καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἐσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. 

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, 

and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound as having been bound in heaven, 

and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed as having been loosed in heaven." 

κλεῖδας -  kleidas/ kleis is "a key" or "something that closes / shuts as well as opens" (in the Greek use of the word). 

 δεδεμένον – the perfect passive participle of deo, “to bind”, is essentially the status of that which the action completes.  Therefore dedemenon effectually means “that which is bound, having BEEN bound.”  

λελυμένον – the perfect passive participle of luo, to unbind, to loosen, untie is essentially the status of that which the action completes.  Therefore lelumenon effectually means “that which is untied and unbound, having BEEN untied and unbound.”  

John 20:23

ἀν τινων ἀφῆτε τὰς ἀμαρτίας ἀφέωνται αὐτοῖς, ἀν τινων κρατῆτε κεκράτηνται.

 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven;

if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

ἀφῆτε  -  aphete  is aphiemi in the aorist subjunctive active.  It is an action that simply occurs, and is neither repeated nor continuous in its intent. 

       In this use in John 20:23, the sins are sent away or forsaken at some point in time or circumstance.

ἀφέωνται –       apheentai is aphiemi in the present indicative passive.  The temporal Indicative Mood of the Greek’s Perfect Tense.  Its intent is to drive home that an action is either completed or finished. 

        In John 20:23, the sins are most certainly having been completely sent away or forsaken…inferring an action of repentance on the part of the offender, and/or  forgiveness on the part of the victim. 

In the Aramaic of the Peshitta, the word Shebaq / Sabach is sometimes  used to translate aphiemi in the Greek. 

The Aramaic Shebaq is used in regard to forgiving sin by ignoring them in John 20:23’s use of aphiemi:

“Ever of whom you dismiss – send away – remit – forgive the sins,
they are dismissed – sent away – remitted  – forgiven to them;
ever of whom you retain- and- hold- fast- with- strength,
they are retained- and- held- fast- (as- unforgiven).”     [translation mine]

Examples include Mark 1:18’s aorist participle active of aphiemi -  aphentes (left),

“And immediately they left their nets and followed him.”  Mark 1:18

Aphaken – aphiemi in the aorist indicative active,  in John 8:29  means "left" :
 
“And He who sent Me is with Me;
He has not left Me alone, for I always do what is pleasing to him."   John 8:29

and the direct in-verse translation of Sabbachthani in Mark 15:34 as ΕΓKΑTΕΛIΠΕΣ / egkatelipes… egkataleipo in the aorist indicative active.

And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice,
"E'lo-i, E'lo-i, la'ma sabach-tha'ni?"
which means,
"My God, my God,
why hast thou forsaken me?"    Mk. 15:34

In Matthew 27:50, aphiemi in the aorist indicative active is used to describe a “yielding up” of the spirit of life within the body:  “And Jesus cried again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit.”

In other words, He laid it down, dismissed it, sent His spirit away from His body --  forsaking His body -- no man took it from Him. 

Thus the believer can leave, forsake, or send away any unforgiveness of sin out of their hearts, minds, and even their physical lives as it regards themselves.  This right to forgive (or not forgive) cannot be regulated away by any Government or control freaks group of advisers or mental experts (should political correctness now extend that far).  

The born-again believer has the power to forgive the sin or harm of those who do them hurt, but this “forgiveness”, contrary to the claims of some of the passage of the Sermon on the Mount, is NOT obligatory…just highly preferable, as the Sermon on the Mount passage explains: we are to have a pattern of forgiving most people and most actions, and to do good, that we may practice to be like G-D the Father in Heaven, that He may be bless out of the lips of unbelievers as well as believers even as good children doing good deeds may have their parents praised because of the goodness of their children in behavior, word, and deed.   

Matthew 5 (King James Version)

⁴³Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

 ⁴⁴But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

 ⁴⁵That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

If the victim who is a believer chooses to hold the offender accountable for harm done him/her, they may lawfully in prayer cry out in prayer that G-D would do justice and punish the offender.  That action is found as a correct attitude in the use of krateo.

 κρατῆτε – kratete is krateo in the present subjunctive active.  It is an action that is continuous, irrespective of time (such as when the action occurred)

κεκράτηνται – kekratentai is krateo in the present indicative passive.  The temporal Indicative Mood of the Greek’s Perfect Tense.  Its intent is to drive home that an action is either completed or finished.  

Krateo is related to that power and strength that is outwardly manifested in its ability (or lack thereof) to hold and retain and render often passive though continual dominant authority over.  It may be explained in part as the authority of rule as a master or a dominant government.  It may be explained in part as the rule of a prison cell or chains over its prisoner.  It may also be explained in part as that necessity or willful action of the inferior to cleave and keep the words, orders, and instructions of a superior at all costs to oneself.   

The one who is born again by the Holy Spirit has the krateo or “strength” to choose to forgive or not to forgive certain actions by individuals who offend that one, or does harm to the Community of believers.  He/she is within their rights as believers to not forgive unrepentant offenses / offenders.  

In a modern day example, by demanding Barack Obama be held accountable for usurpation of power as an unrepentant sinner and chronic violator of the US Constitution, and to NOT let go or forgive the sin (because there is NO repentance or resignation or voiding out of his usurpation laws enacted), we are well within our rights to declare those sins as remaining both against Earth and against Heaven. 

But some may say that what Obama does or passes in 4 or 8 years will effectually be non-binding if or when he is voted out of Office.  I say...wishful thinking on your part.  That is how history explains that papal worship and papal supremacy REALLY took off...i.e., totalitarianism within the Roman Catholic Church and over those societies they politically ruled as well.    

 In Gregory the VII's letter to the bishop of Metz, Hermann, there was also a "play" on some 27 differing non-binding teachings or concepts which snow-balled into fast reality.  In this letter of Pope Gregory VII, the Scripture of Matthew 16:18-19 was used to take the right of apostolic succession from Peter, and was accompanied with I Samuel 15:23's "Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft"; and Jeremiah 48:10's "Cursed be he who negligently and deceitfully does the L-RD's work, who keeps his sword back from blood."  You can guess what came next as a result.

Eventually, even the "musings" of a pope in letters of correspondence were ruled as if infallible. 

No longer did Jesus in Revelation Chapter 1 Himself hold the keys of life and death, but they were passed on to Peter, despite the rebuke of Scripture, and from Peter to the papacy...which has yet to ever raise one person from the dead, even temporarily. 

In fact, we have to wonder if the Roman Papacy works against Christianity by the very proclamation of its popes in word, deed, and pomp.  

Upon the Pope's tiara is written:  VICARIVS FILII DEI - "has told us, G-D"

'Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man: and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.' Revelation 13:18.

VICARIVS FILII DEI is the inscription upon the Pope’s tiara, and since only certain Roman characters have numerical values (unlike Greek and Hebrew)...his equals 666 upon the forehead when he (the Pope) wears it.

I=1; V=5; X=10; L=50; C=100; D=500. VICARIVS = 112, FILLI = 53, DEI = 501, == 666. NOT a good sign.

Papal Infallibility gave way to self-exaltation to a totalitarian deity, or neo-Pharaoh on the mythical throne of Peter...mythical because Peter never had a throne on Earth, but was promised only a throne in heaven equal to 11 other Apostles to sit at one of the 12 gates of New Jerusalem.  Hardly what the Roman Catholic Church has claimed in Peter's name.  In fact, they weren't satisfied with usurping a throne that wasn't theirs to have, but demanded that they were deserving of being worshiped as GOD, but with NONE of GOD's powers to heal or preternaturally save, etc., despite a boast of Pope Nicolas to be able to do exactly those things.   

Pope Innocent III: 

‘We may according to the fulness of our power, dispose of the law and dispense above the law. Those whom the Pope of Rome doth separate, it is not a man that separates them but God. For the Pope holdeth place on earth, not simply of a man but of the true God.’ I Book of Gregory 9 Decret. C3.

Marcellus at the Lateran Council, addressing Pope Julius II, said: 

‘Take care that we lose not that salvation, that life and breath which thou hast given us, for thou art our shepherd, thou art physician, thou art governor, thou are husbandman, thou finally ART ANOTHER GOD ON EARTH’ Council Edit. Colm. Agrip. 1618.

Pope Nicholas:  

‘I am all in all and above all, so that God Himself, and I, the Vicar of God, hath both one consistory, and I am able to do almost all that God can do . . . Wherefore, if those things that I do be said not to be done of man, but of God. WHAT CAN YOU MAKE ME BUT GOD? Again, if prelates of the Church be called and counted of Constantine for gods, I then, being above all prelates, seem by this reason to be ABOVE ALL GODS. Wherefore, no marvel if it be in my power to dispense with all things, yea, with the precepts of Christ.’ See Decret. Par Distinct 96 Ch. 7 Edit Lugd. 1661.

The Second Vatican Council confirmed the titles "Vicar [Substitute] of Christ" and "Successor of Peter".  In effect, Roman Catholicism told the LORD of Heaven and Earth to "get the hell out of the way, because we're taking over" or a proclamation to that effect.  This abuse was no different than that of Caiaphas and his Sanhedrin Katan when Jesus walked the Earth, and was ensured by them to be sentenced to death, so they might have dominion, knowing he was truly the Messiah / Messhiach / Christ of GOD.  True believers existed upon the Earth in succession from the times of the Apostles, in spite of the insane proclamations by Satanic popes.  The Protestant Reformation ensured a purity of Christianity was confirmed and continued for posterity by necessity, but now I digress.

The teachings of Irenaeus (Against Heresies)  refute papacy.

Case in point:  It was stated in the mid to late second Century A.D. repeatedly, that not just Rome, but ANY existing  Church having a succession of presbyters or bishops directly to any apostle of Jesus, is a true witness of the One True Church.  Cf. Book/Chapter/Section  3.3.1., 3.24.1., 4.26.2., 4.26.5., 4.33.6., and 5.20.1. of Against Heresies.
   Therefore, we can say that Alexandria of Egypt's Coptic Christianity has just as much a right of succession to Peter as does Rome.  And this being the case, that Rome had little more worth than merely being a place of pre-eminent location, therefore all believers by extension can claim an inheritance via a line of the Living Church of actual believers into Jesus back to the time of Christ upon the Earth, via a Universal Church without earthly Government and without walls, with Christ (who is now in Heaven at the right hand of GOD the Father) as its Head.  
 -------------------------



The papal conspiracy did not begin until Victor the 13th Bishop of Rome issued his Praexas, after the writing of Irenaeus' work (which we loosely translate as "Against Heresies").

In 183 A.D., the text which puffed Victor up, before the Christian Churches of the Empire shouted him down, was this:

"It is within the power of all, therefore, within every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the Apostles manifested throughout the whole world...

[that is, those who wish to find a common gathering place of convenience, since in 183 A.D., Jerusalem was no longer an option -- might come to Rome and see that the common testimony that all the Apostles preached every where from which they ecumenically hail, with the same common message.  In other words, it wasn't via the bishop of Rome, it was via the emissaries of the various Christian Churches throughout the Roman Empire.]

{Next is a new translation of the latter part that follows}
For it is a matter of pragmatic business that every Church should come from all directions, in every way, to gather in this principal city [of Rome], that the truth might be preserved as it was entrusted them."
(Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1.)  

For further recommended reading, I suggest that you read Tertullian, Against Praexas, .1, .28, .29, and find that the first Protestant split was not with Luther, it was with Caius and others some time between 185 - 190 A.D.  Therefore, if there was no pope in 183 A.D., there was no papacy in A.D. 55 when Peter was de facto in Rome.  Jerome, when he invokes the LORD's passion, hold true to this.  When he does not invoke the LORD's passion, he fabricates in regards to Peter's arrival and departure.  Examine this in his work, "On Illustrious Men". 
---------------------

Irenaeus repeatedly views Paul and Peter not only as equals (1.13.6, 4.35.2., for example), but Paul being inferred to as the greater missionary/Apostle (4.24.2.).

Now, I do so acknowledge the Roman Catholic Church as being the Instrument in which G-D has brought His word by means of many manuscripts down to us through the ages, from then until now, but more often than not (from about the 600s A.D.  on), Christianity flourished and survived in spite of its new dominance it found itself in possession of. 

Papacy, when correctly traced back to its earliest roots or origin,  was an invention of deception that was conceived with Victor, the 13th Bishop of Rome pre-Nicene in the late second century A.D., and was eventually implemented post-Nicene.  

Irenaeus tells us that the Law of Moses ruled from Moses until John the Baptist (4.4.2.).  If that is the case, then I (and those who hear me) do not need a high priest on Earth, when I  (we) have an even greater, the Great Priest of Heaven, Jesus Christ; and in earth, the indwelling of G-D the Holy Spirit within me (us) --  (as all true born-again Christians do).

Some may say, "Isn't the Church supposed to "love" and be wishy-washy?"

Love can drive an action of abrasiveness as well as tenderness, such as when a parent tries to correct a wayward child.  It is strange that only the Church of Christ is NOT allowed to love in any way that might offend somebody.  So when your 6 year old kid or grand-kid gets offended that you prevent them from running onto a busy freeway, you should just love them and watch as a Freight-liner Truck rolls their sorry (now a) carcass up in their wheel-well at 55 mph because YOU just wanted to wishy-washy "love" your kid or grand-kid?  That's love? I say it is NOT.

Yes, we need a more loving Church..loving in the right way, .but some, like myself, whether through life experiences / personality / whatever, aren't gifted in this area in mincing words and playing with niceties that distract from the necessities of sharing information that may help to avert hurt and even death...often coming off  blunt and compared to some Drill Instructor.  But a Drill Instructor is blamed for doing what?  For merely trying to prepare and inform recruits to minimize the danger and mistakes that a lack of preparation may cause them later on.  We all can love, but we all have differing degrees and talents of expression.

          We need the WHOLE counsel of G-D.  Sound doctrine and instruction is just as important, it cannot be left out. Without it, the fruit rots, disease and worms corrupt, and the tree withers and dies. Then what is the judgement upon that tree?  It is ruled as "bad" and is cut down and perhaps used for firewood.

The Corinthians and Asiatics taught us that if we carry the "love" doctrine too far, we enter the fleshly realm of orgies, fornication, adulteries, idolatry, and all sorts of wayward stuff that leads us away from the salvation of what G-D the Son did at the Cross.

     "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore...."
                                                          Revelation 3:19

     "Except your Righteousness [dikaiosune] shall overflowingly exceed [perisseuse] of you more than the scribes and Pharisees, in no way shall you go into the Kingdom of the Heavens."   Matthew 5:20

To" rebuke", in Revelation 3:19,  is "to reprove with conviction upon the offender."  Peter called the 25 leaders who moved the other 45 of the Sanhedrin to kill Christ as "murderers" in Acts 2.  This wasn't "Lovey dovey, you crucified Jesus, let me give you a love-hug;" now was it?  

We are not called to love the sin AND the sinner, you know.

There's also the word "chasten" (in Revelation 1:19) which in the Greek is related to the word for child, and the concept of the strap and the wood-shed, of beating rebellion or waywardness out of the child who rebels from sound behavior.   And Jesus literally whipped the money-changers and others, and soundly beat down violently scores of men who resisted him.  If you understand how crowded the Mount was, and how many  grown men He had to beat down, and the endurance and strength it took,  you might put the act in the "manly pugilist" or iron-man class of John L. Sullivan.

The word "Righteousness" (in the Greek) is the antithesis or antonym of "Lawlessness".  It is like having a Wyatt Earp, even if by violence in rare and strict circumstances, to clean up the lawlessness and disorder of Dodge City or Tombstone.  If sound doctrine convicts, it is meant to upon the ones in a lawless state or those who are having a leaning or "bent" in that direction.  When we stray from sound doctrine, we say commit the same waywardness as found in Judges 21:25.

Even Jesus says, "Judge you RIGHTEOUS judgement...not according to appearance." (John 7:24) Learning Scripture, and history, and application isn't a sin.  For one day, we shall sit down at the feet of YHVeH / the LORD (Deut. 33:3), and be taught of G-D (Isaiah 54:13) in ways and instructions far beyond we can even begin to comprehend now.

{Updated on July 12, 2011}