How Do You Apologize?

The current news out of Toronto involving Mayor Rob Ford raises the question, "How do you apologize?"  Back in 2006, Marvin Olasky, made some interesting statements about this.  For instance he wrote:

• "Requests for human forgiveness should be directed straightforwardly to the individuals sinned against.
• "Those who are caught should not plea bargain." (Some of what I said was true.)
• "It's not adequate to say, when criticized, I was just kidding."
• "It's also too bad when people to preserve their political or job status have to pretend they didn't mean what they meant."
• "Nor do two wrongs make a right."

The origin of the word 'apology' tended to lean toward self-justification, but today's cultural expectation lands more in the category of "saying your sorry." Marvin Olasky poignantly and brilliantly summarizes the best response to wrongdoing by a simple statement "to the offended human party and to God as well. 'I was wrong. Please forgive me.'"

My mother's sage wisdom taught me that when you say you are sorry, you are intent on not repeating it. Does this go without saying? She got that, I believe, from 2 Corinthians 7:10 [1]. In that passage, Paul, commended the Corinthians for their apologetic behaviour.  This is what he wrote:

“Just see what this godly sorrow produced in you! Such earnestness, such concern to clear yourselves, such indignation, such alarm, such longing to see me, such zeal, and such a readiness to punish wrong. You showed that you have done everything necessary to make things right.” (2 Corinthians 7:11, NLT) 

Did you see that?  "Do everything necessary to make things right."  That's a great standard for an apology.



  


_____________________________
1. For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death.

Not All Exaggerations Are Lies.

When the fish story is exaggerated; and the white-tail buck scores bigger in the narrative than on the tape, that's a lie.  But not all exaggerations are lies.  Some exaggerations are called hyperboles. A hyperbole is a means of speaking that is intended to make a strong impression.  It is never to be taken literally. An hyper, hyperbole is immediately recognized by that reality. A hyperbole is an overstatement as compared to a situation that is understated. When you are stuck in the mud, up to the floor boards and say, "I think I'm in trouble here;" that is understated.  To bring in the groceries for your wife and say, "This bag weighs a ton;" is overstated.

"Jesus used a hyperbole to impress His listeners with the gravity of sin. It would be better to sever a member of the body than to keep it and go to hell." [1]

 ““Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea. And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, ‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’” (Mark 9:42–48, ESV)

Overstatements are not intended to minimize the situation, but to show its severity.  People who deny eternal suffering claiming that the Bible is just using metaphors fail to understand the role of the hyperbole.  But we who are Christians might also make a similar error.  Understanding grace and forgiveness may lead us to minimize the severity of sin.   "Jesus is not demanding the excision of our bodily members; he is demanding the cessation of the sinful activities of these members. Radical spiritual surgery is demanded. Nothing less is at stake than life, eternal life (cf. v. 47, where "kingdom of God" stands in parallel to "life" in vv. 43, 45)." (Expositor's Bible Commentary).

________________________________
1.  KJV Bible Commentary. 1994 (E. E. Hindson & W. M. Kroll, Ed.) (1988). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

The Unique Relationship of Prayer and Faith

“And he said to them, “This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer”” (Mark 9:29, ESV).  So reads the NIV and NASB.  The King James Version reads: “And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.” (Mark 9:29, AV).  Matthew records the same narrative this way: “He said to them, “Because of your little faith. For truly, I say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you.”” (Matthew 17:20, ESV).

There is a direct connection between faith and prayer.  It likely is something like: prayerlessness equates to faithlessness. "Apparently they had taken for granted the power given them or had come to believe that it was inherent in themselves. So they no longer depended prayerfully on God for it, and their failure showed their lack of prayer."  (Expositor's Bible Commentary).    But the opposite might be true also.  Not only with faithlessness produce prayerlessness, but prayerlessness produces faithlessness.  But of course the positive is this: even the minute faith of a mustard seed will lead us to pray which in turn stimulates greater faith.

What Did The Pharisees And Herod Have In Common?

I've heard a lot about Pharisaism but never before did I notice it's connection with King Herod. It is recorded in Mark 8:11, "Watch out; beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod."  As this Study Bible notes: "The Pharisees and Herod seem to be an odd combination."[1] What is the connection with Herod?  The KJV Bible Commentary continues with this reasonable explanation: "Matthew unites the Pharisees and the Sadducees (Matthew 16:6) with a common leaven, If Herod belonged to the Sadducee sect, as many scholars believe, the common denominator would be their attachment to a false religion." [1]  "They were the deists or sceptics of that age." [2] Jesus called them hypocrites, wicked and adulterous (Matthew 16:1–4; 22:23).  The did not believe in the doctrine of the resurrection.

I think another possibility is that Jesus did not equate the concept of Herod with him as a person, but with a group that are called Herodians.  They were a Jewish political party who sympathized with the Herodian rulers in their general policy of government, and in the social customs which they introduced from Rome. They were at one with the Sadducees in holding the duty of submission to Rome, and of supporting the Herods on the throne.[2]

Now the Pharisees were "noted for their self-righteousness and their pride (Matthew 9:11; Luke 7:39; 18:11, 12)." [2]  But if Christ meant to warn the disciples of a common "leaven" that existed between the Pharisees and Herodians it had to be that the both hated Christ and sought to obstruct His Messianic mission. “The Pharisees went out and immediately held counsel with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him.” (Mark 3:6, ESV).

"What seems like an innocent, indeed legitimate request for a sign (on Herod’s desire for miracles, see Luke 23:8) is actually a rejection of His ministry and all His previous signs." [3] Could it be that self-righteous pride, hypocrisy and rationalism really obstruct the ministry and work of Christ? These attitudes lead us to being enemies of Christ rather than followers of Christ. Submission to rules or rulers apart from Christ position us as foes of Christ, not followers.

_________________________________________
1. KJV Bible Commentary. 1994 (E. E. Hindson & W. M. Kroll, Ed.) (1985). Nashville: Thomas Nelson
2. Easton, M. G. (1893). Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers.
3. Whitlock, L. G., Sproul, R. C., Waltke, B. K., & Silva, M. (1995). The Reformation study Bible: Bringing the light of the Reformation to Scripture: New King James Version (Mk 8:15). Nashville: T. Nelson.