The Significance of Interpersonal Forgiveness in the Gospel of Matthew

The Significance of Interpersonal Forgiveness in the Gospel of Matthew

Isaac Kahwa Mbabazi

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF INTERPERSONAL FORGIVENESS IN THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

Copyright © 2013 Isaac Kahwa Mbabazi. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401.

Pickwick Publications

An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers

199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3

Eugene, OR 97401

www.wipfandstock.com

isbn 13: 978–1-62564–177-9

eisbn 13: 978-1-63087-032-4

Cataloging-in-Publication data:

Mbabazi, Isaac Kahwa

The significance of interpersonal forgiveness in the Gospel of Matthew / Isaac Kahwa Mbabazi.

xii + 256 p. ; 23 cm. —Includes bibliographical references and index(es).

isbn 13: 978–1-62564–177-9

1. Bible. Matthew—Criticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Forgiveness of sin—Biblical teaching. I. Title.

BS2575.6 F64 M25 2013

Manufactured in the U.S.A.

Table of Contents

Title Page

Foreword

Preface

Abbreviations

Chapter 1: General Issues, History of Scholarship, and Method

Chapter 2: The Centrality of Interpersonal Forgiveness in Matthew

Chapter 3: The Rhetoric of Interpersonal Forgiveness in First-Century Secular Literature

Chapter 4: The Rhetoric of Interpersonal Forgiveness in Jewish Literature in Greek

Chapter 5: The Rhetoric of Interpersonal Forgiveness in Matt 6:9–15

Chapter 6: The Rhetoric of Interpersonal Forgiveness in Matt 18:21–35

Chapter 7: Forgiveness and Connected Aspects of Matthew’s Theology

Bibliography

Foreword

Isaac came to research on this topic with an interest in tackling it as a way of helping people in his home area, the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, to handle issues of reconciliation following bouts of civil war. In these conflicts, all the participants tend to profess some sort of Christian allegiance, so biblical resources can provide key ground for enabling dialogue and helping people and groups move forward after violence.

The tendency for many students whose interests are as highly contextual as those of Isaac is to produce a type of reader-response study of the biblical text in question, where the readers are those in the current contextual situation. The resulting work can be of great value for such readers but the level of interest among other kinds of reader can sometimes be somewhat limited. Isaac has not gone down this reader-response route but has instead produced a more directly exegetical study of the topic in Matthew that he is interested in for contextual reasons.

As Isaac’s study progressed I was increasingly impressed that he has indeed drawn out a major theme in Matthew, the significance of which has not been properly recognized by previous scholarship. In fact, interpersonal forgiveness could possibly be seen as one of the key drivers of the distinctive shape of Matthew’s Gospel. Isaac sets the evidence out clearly and draws in a range of illuminating ancient comparative material to show how interpersonal forgiveness was handled in other texts. His argument is one that anyone studying Matthew’s Gospel will find interesting.

Isaac was a joy to supervise, both because of his character and because of his unremitting commitment to surmounting the range of challenges involved in turning his passion for his subject into successful PhD work. Isaac’s dissertation was passed, as one of the last academic acts of the great Matthean scholar, R. T. France. He was my own first academic New Testament teacher and I owe him a great debt for key foundations that he laid for future study. He combined great scholarship, great graciousness, and great commitment to the Christian faith. Knowing also his commitment to biblical scholarship in Africa, I am sure that this book too would also have given him some delight.

Peter Oakes

Greenwood Senior Lecturer in the New Testament

University of Manchester

Preface

This book is the published version of a PhD dissertation studied at The University of Manchester, in the United Kingdom. An interest in the theme of interpersonal forgiveness in Matthew’s Gospel arose in 2002, when a series of teaching on the significance of the theme was given by Rev. Dr. David Langford¹ at the Institut Supérieur Théologique de Bunia (ISTB), in Congo. Later, the interest in researching this subject as a doctoral topic emerged. Dr. Peter Oakes became my supervisor, guiding my work through to its completion. Other scholars also came in at different stages of the project with diverse contributions. The following names are worth mention in this respect: first, the members of the Ehrhardt Seminar (i.e., Centre for Biblical Research of The University of Manchester), particularly Prof. George J. Brooke, Rev. F. Gerald Downing, and Rev. Dr. Jack McKelvey; second, the members of Tyndale Fellowship, particularly Dr. David J. Reimer, Dr. David Wenham, Rev. Dr. John Nolland, Prof. Donald A. Hagner, and Prof. I. Howard Marshall; and third, the members of the British New Testament Society. It has been a great honor to learn from each of them.

Special thanks are due to the late Dr. R. T. France and Dr. Todd Klutz, who examined my dissertation and gave reasonable comments and suggestions. These have been very helpful and have been taken into consideration in the process of producing the present monograph. A vote of thanks is also due to the Université Shalom de Bunia (USB) for kindly granting me a period of leave to undertake my doctoral studies that has culminated in a dissertation that has now become a monograph. I am extremely grateful to Langham Partnership International (LPI), to Educating Africans for Christ (EAFC), to Mylne Trust, and to Ministers’ Relief Society for sponsoring the project.

I am also extremely grateful to Pickwick Publications for the acceptance of my monograph proposal for publication, thus making my dissertation more widely available.

In the process of writing this monograph, I have received tremendous support from friends—these I came to consider my extended family—for moral, spiritual, and practical support. I feel indebted particularly to Revd Kenneth and Mary Habershon, Dr. Steve and Mrs. Jane Hawes, Dic and Phyllis Lawson, Pastor Nyakufa Bagota, Cley and Jane Crouch, Mrs Elizabeth Johnston, Miss Ruth Johnston, Dr. Suseela Mathias, Margaret Habershon, Carl and Michelle Bucknor, Sarah Nativel, Montunrayo Ogunyinka, Lorna Lindsay, Lore and Colin Chumbley, Zarina Karmali, Andy and Katina Williams, Les and Christina Hampstead, David and Emma Peppiatt, Phil and Barbara Hawksley, Adrian and Madalen Haines, Martin and Faida Austin, Jon and Jude Witt, and many other friends around the world. Thank you for your love and companionship, which always keeps me both humble and joyful.

I owe many thanks to Downing, Miss Katharina Keim, and Miss Emily Innes, for their whole-hearted assistance in reading the manuscript, correcting and helping improve my English, and to Dr. Chris Spinks for editing the manuscript and bringing the project to its completion. It was great pleasure working with Christian Amondson, Ian Creeger, Jim Tedrick, Matthew Stock, and Raydeen Cuffe.

And last, but far from least, I am grateful to my wife, Jeannette Bugurwenda Mbabazi, for shouldering all the laborious work at home and taking care of our daughters (Grâce Komwinsingo Mbabazi, Georgine Kyakuhaire Mbabazi, and Vanessa Kabasinguzi Mbabazi), when I was away doing research, and for the family for their patient support throughout. I owe a lifelong debt to my mother Kezia Rubito Kahwa, and to my brothers and sisters, for their encouragement for their son and brother to pursue his lengthened study in England.

Isaac Kahwa Mbabazi

1. David Langford was a missionary in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) for several years. He taught at Institut Supérieur Théologique de Bunia (ISTB), as it was then. Later he became the Principal of ISTB for a few years. Currently, he is in the United States of America and is an adjunct professor of Practical Theology at Université Shalom de Bunia (USB), in the DRC.

Abbreviations

Ant. Jewish Antiquities

Ant. Rom. Roman Antiquities

BAGD Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature

BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series

EDNT Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament

ISBE International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JIS Journal of International Studies

JRE Journal of Religious Ethics

JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament

JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series

JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series

JSPR Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament

NIDB New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible

NIDNTT New International Dictionary of the New Testament Theology

NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary

PSPR Personality and Social Psychology Review

PSTJ Perkins School of Theology Journal

SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament

TLG Thesaurus Linguae Graecae

WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

1

General Issues, History of Scholarship, and Method

The present study explores the theme of interpersonal forgiveness in Matthew.¹ By interpersonal forgiveness I mean giving up or letting go resentment for an injury (or wrongdoing) caused, or for failure to meet one’s obligation. It is a sort of moving past transgression or failure by ceasing to harbor bitterness and refraining from taking revenge, with the ultimate aim of potentially restoring a disrupted (or broken) relationship between a wrongdoer and a wronged person.

I argue that this idea of interpersonal forgiveness is more central to the message in the First Gospel than scholars have previously appreciated. I also venture an understanding of the nature of interpersonal forgiveness in this gospel. I do not engage in the study of the systematic theology of conditionality, although conditionality in forgiveness is considered. I focus on what this conditionality means for the people. (By conditionality I mean the condition to forgive others that is expected from the Christian before he or she can ask for God’s forgiveness.)

The structure of this first chapter takes the form of four main sections. The first section states the problem and the aim of the study; the second section discusses the history of scholarship; the third section describes the method of interpretation used in this study in handling the Matthean material and the fourth describes what was covered in the first chapter and what will be done in each succeeding chapter along with the respective tasks of each.

Problem, Aim, and Relevance of the Study

This investigation takes up the issue of interpersonal forgiveness in the First Gospel. However, insufficient attention seems to have been given to this theme in this gospel. No attempt has been made to consider its centrality, or to explore its nature and understand better Matthew’s passages related to it. Although the subject is inevitably considered by almost every commentator on Matthew, to the knowledge of the present author, the above mentioned aspects of this theme have not been given adequate attention in published exegesis.

A number of issues have characterized scholarly debate in Matthean studies for the last four decades. They can be grouped into five categories: first, Matthew’s relation to formative Judaism; second, the literary structure of the gospel and moral instruction; third, Matthew’s view of salvation history; fourth, his Christology; fifth, the place of Matthew in the development of early Christianity and Judaism.² This study is a potential contribution to the debate concerning the latter issue. The main question of concern here is twofold. First, what contribution did he expect it to make to the internal problems that his community was facing? Second, what then are possible values which he commends to his community? Engaging in this involves inquiring into the situation of Matthew’s group.³ There are some clues within Matthew, which clearly reflect its possible situation to do with conflicts. Several items have been proposed as possible aspects of the situation of this community in later first-century Antioch. Because of their prominence in the gospel, they have been considered as the prominent themes in it. First is the role of the Torah in its relation to Jesus and his teaching. Second is hostility toward the Jewish leadership. Third are identity, self-definition and the future of God’s covenant people. Fourth is righteousness, and fifth forgiveness of sins.⁴ Discipleship, community, reward and judgment have sometimes also been suggested to be prominent in the gospel.⁵

There are sound reasons to believe that these are prominent issues in the First Gospel; for most of them are to a greater or less extent subjects of a full scale discussion—some running throughout. The law and its right interpretation and correct application to life, as well as the hostility toward the Jewish leadership, are evident from the so-called fulfillment citations⁶ (Matt 2:13 cp. Exod 2:15; Matt 2:16 cp. Exod 2:23; Matt 2:19 cp. Exod 4:19; Matt 2:12 cp. Exod 4:20, etc.), from the conflict stories (12:1–8; 15:1–20; 22:34–40) and from the section 5:17–48. As to identity, self-definition and the future of God’s covenant people, it is also possible to derive them from and relate them to the Matthean fulfillment citations and conflict story texts. As J. Andrew Overman has written, "The rejection of the Jewish leadership and the conviction that they are faithless and have corrupted the will and law of God lead naturally to the question about the future of God’s people . . . The exclusive nature of these communities and the claims they made led inevitably to the conclusion that the community constituted God’s new . . ., God’s true people."⁷ The righteousness theme is directly stated in the gospel by means of the noun δικαιοσύνη (7x: 3:15; 5:6, 10, 20; 6:1, 33; 21:32) and the corresponding adjective δίκαιος (17x). As Graham N. Stanton has stated, discipleship and community themes in the context of the whole gospel are intertwined and interdependent⁸ (Matt 6; 18).

Each of these themes has been given due attention in scholarship. Overman, for example, has thoroughly explored these motifs in his monograph Matthew’s Gospel and Formative Judaism. Interpersonal forgiveness, however, never appears on his list of themes in Matthew which he regards as central themes. To his mind, this is clearly a prominent theme in Matt 18—but not necessarily one of outstanding topics in the entire gospel—being stressed in that chapter.⁹ Under the subsection ordering the life of the community, Overman discusses five items, among which are righteousness, community life in Matt 5–7 and community discipline in Matt 18. Interpersonal forgiveness is referred to in two of them, only in passing.¹⁰ In the paragraph in which a few Matthean forgiveness texts (6:12, 14; 9:8; 16:19; 18:15; 26:28) are involved in the discussion, Overman focuses his attention on the object (ὀφειλήματα/ ἁμαρτίας) of the verb, but not on the verb itself (ἀφίημι).¹¹

Indeed, themes listed above are central to the message in the First Gospel. It is not unreasonable that they have received considerable attention. The prominence of interpersonal forgiveness has not been completely ignored, of course, but most tend to discuss it either in general terms, or under the topic of forgiveness of sins. Roland Deines’ statement below may serve to illustrate this:

The prominence of the forgiveness motif is visible throughout the whole gospel (

3

:

6

[only confession of sins, no mentioning of forgiveness as in Mark

1

:

4

, because only Jesus can forgive];

9

:

2–6

,

13

;

12

:

31

;

20

:

28

;

26

:

28

; cf. also Jesus’ taking care of the sinners,

9

:

10

f.;

11

:

19

) . . .¹²

The evidence provided in Deines’s statement speaks strongly in favor of the prominence of the theme of forgiveness in the First Gospel. The same evidence has been used by Ulrich Luz in an attempt to make a similar point.¹³ Affirming forgiveness of sins as a prominent theme in Matthew is not the same as affirming the prominence of the interpersonal forgiveness theme in it. These are obviously two distinct notions; and each of them probably deserves to be studied as a theme on its own right.

Up to the present, as far as the present author is aware, insufficient attention has been given to the theme at hand. A few scholars, it has to be noted, have come close to examining the subject of this study; but they have not addressed the very concern of this study. To begin with, P. Ellingworth has aptly stated the importance of interpersonal forgiveness in Matthew as follows:

God’s forgiveness cannot be effectively received except by those who are ready to forgive others. This is given special emphasis in Matthew’s version of a unique comment: "If you do not forgive others, then your father will not forgive the wrongs you have done (

6

:

15

)."¹⁴

This statement recognizes the significance of the theme in Matthew by pointing to the special emphasis given to it in 6:15. Ellingworth uses the saying in 6:15 as evidence. He could have also used the saying in 6:14 so as to include the whole package of the antithetical parallelism found in 6:14–15. Davies and Allison have used this rhetorical device as evidence for the significance of interpersonal forgiveness in Matthew.¹⁵ Donald A. Hagner has made a useful comment in this regard:

Vv

14–15

form a logion that the evangelist appends to the prayer because of its close association to the content of the fifth petition. The fact that it interrupts the flow of the larger passage (vv

1–18

) suggests that the evangelist regarded its content as of great importance, not only for the offering of acceptable prayer but perhaps for its practical relevance for certain tensions with his Jewish-Christian community (cf.

5

:

23–24

).¹⁶

Hagner’s observation has two great merits. It connects harmoniously with the forgiveness texts within the Sermon on the Mount¹⁷ (5:23–24 + 6:12 + 6:14–15), therefore adding something to the evidence. It also recognizes the importance of interpersonal forgiveness embodied in these passages at two levels. At the vertical relation level, it connects the notion of interpersonal forgiveness to the ideas of prayer and sacrifice; at the horizontal relation level, it recognizes the practical relevance of interpersonal forgiveness within the community. In this way, Hagner spells out quite clearly the practical relevance of the interpersonal forgiveness motif in Matthew.

This relevance has also attracted Luz’s attention. He has commented that, with the logion of 6:14–15, Matthew repeats the forgiveness petition of the Lord’s Prayer¹⁸ and puts it in parenetic form; both the conditional wording and the negative (v. 15) make clear that human forgiving is a condition for divine forgiving. He then argues that, with this statement, the first evangelist emphasizes precisely the part of the Prayer where human activity is most directly involved.¹⁹ Luz’s comment spells out explicitly two aspects of the rhetorical device which emerge in 6:14–15 (the conditional wording and the negative statement) as evidence for the significance of interpersonal forgiveness in the Prayer and beyond. John Nolland has expressed the importance of this theme in Matthew by using a contrast:

[I]n the explanation in vv.

14–15

clearly Matthew thinks of forgiveness of others as a necessary condition for seeking God’s forgiveness. This is not to say that the source of our whole understanding of forgiveness is not in the mercy of God . . ., but it is to say that failure to forgive closes the door to ongoing forgiveness (cf. Mt.

18

:

23–35

).²⁰

What is most relevant for our purposes in Nolland’s statement is the fact that he relates the understanding of Matthew’s teaching about the issue of interpersonal forgiveness to God’s mercy; he does no more than that. Hans D. Betz sees not forgiving someone as both a fault on the part of the unforgiving person and an act leading to God’s refusal to forgive the faithful, an act which has exacting eschatological consequences.²¹ He does not elaborate on these consequences nor suggest their possible implications.

Warren Carter has identified four items as possible aspects of the situation of the Matthean community in later first-century Antioch, which he describes as follows: a minority community, a community recently separated from a synagogue because of a recent and bitter dispute with it, a community in transition trying to build a new identity and lifestyle, and an alternative community on the cultural margins of society.²² The discussion about forgiving appears under a community in transition, building a new identity. Claiming the authorial audience reading of Matthew, Carter argues that mercy and forgiveness are hallmarks in this gospel (5:21–26; 9:17; 18:21–35), which he considers as evidence for a lifestyle in which each member cares for the others, a fact which is emphasized throughout the gospel.²³ He further argues that treating others with mercy and forgiveness is a consequence of and continuing condition for experiencing God’s mercy and forgiveness (6:14–15; 18:21–35).²⁴ Carter, like the scholars discussed so far, recognizes the centrality of the theme under scrutiny. He points out the evidence, which unfortunately he does not explore.

David J. Reimer has also recognized its prominence in Matthew. He has fairly discussed the most relevant Matthean forgiveness texts.²⁵ Some of his conclusions will be discussed in detail later in this chapter. Although Reimer recognizes the fact, having his own agenda to do with the examination of this theme in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, he fails to supply enough evidence for this.

A few of the scholars surveyed above have recognized the prominence of the topic, but they have not given it the attention it deserves. Each of their treatments is not only short of details on the use of interpersonal forgiveness in ancient literature of the world of Matthew; it also lacks detailed exegesis of human forgiving in Matthew. Because of a clear gap in this regard in Matthean scholarship, a more complete study of this topic is required. This study will be carried out within the broader context of the First Gospel. The main purpose is to demonstrate that the concept of interpersonal forgiveness is much more central to the message in this gospel than has been previously seen. It also ventures an understanding of the nature of human forgiving and Matthew’s texts related to it, focusing on conditionality in forgiveness and the emphasis on the responsibility of the offended person to forgive. There are a string of references to this theme across the Sermon (5:7, 21–26, 38–42, 43–48; 6:12, 14–15; 7:1–2, 12), which is developed in two sections outside the Sermon (18:15–17, 21–35). These texts altogether offer a significant forgiveness pattern, which can be used as evidence for the hypothesis to be probed in this piece of work.

An interest in these aspects of the subject is compelling, particularly for church life and practice in all contexts. Undertaking such a study would help understand better what forgiveness is and to suggest how Matthew should be read in a post-conflict period context. In order to form just an estimate of the contribution made by Matthew to a fuller understanding of the significance and nature of this theme for the church in the wider world, Matt 6:12, 14–15 and 18:21–35 will be examined in detail. These are the most relevant texts to this study because they are the only Matthean texts in which the notion of interpersonal forgiveness is stated directly by using ἀφίημι to describe the interpersonal interrelationships.

History of Scholarship

The purpose of this section is to situate this study in recent NT scholarship. The aim is to identify possible areas of discussions over the interpersonal forgiveness theme in Matthean scholarship to which a contribution would be of value. This survey looks for the main lines of research and to find how major scholars (biblical scholars and systematicians) see issues related to forgiveness. Literature to be surveyed includes books, commentaries, essays, and articles on forgiveness, on forgiveness and conditionality (or both), on aspects of each of them (or of both), deemed relevant for this study; but the publications on either 6:9–15 or 18:21–35 (or both) will mostly claim our attention. The organization of this survey is not chronological, as the data are examined with the main purpose of finding what eminent scholars think and say about the issues just described, as affirmed in Matt 6:12, 14–15 and 18:21–35. Significant gaps in the work of scholars will be made evident, which will lay the ground for thorough investigation of such relevant issues in the following section and again later in this work (chs. 5 and 6).

There have been numerous attempts to produce accounts of forgiveness in recent years.²⁶ However, the discussion over forgiveness in scholarly discourse is carried out in general terms. The two key Matthean forgiveness texts are referred to sometimes only in passing, or are discussed in a small section of only a couple of paragraphs. There are, however, scholars who have sharpened the discussion over the subject to concentrate the debate on 6:12, 14–15 and 18:21–35, engaging with the study of forgiveness exegetically using these two texts. One may think, for example, of Israel Abrahams, R. A. Guelich, C. F. D. Moule, and Hans D. Betz. The rhetoric of forgiveness in contemporary discussions tends to concentrate on relationships between the rhetoric of forgiveness in the OT and its rhetoric in the NT, between the role of grace over against the Matthean ethical demands, between forgiveness and repentance, between forgiveness and justice, as well as on the meaning of forgiving in the First Gospel and on the motivations in forgiveness.

Jewish Background to Forgiveness

The context of Matthew’s teaching about interpersonal forgiveness has extensively been studied. As has become well known, this is set in the first-century ce, when some of Christianity’s fundamental claims about forgiveness came to be articulated and perhaps slowly differentiated from those of Judaism.²⁷ As a Jew and someone raised within a Jewish culture, Jesus surely knew that God is gracious and forgiving, notions which are plain in the OT. Controversy, however, surrounds the description of the rhetoric of forgiveness in the OT and its rhetoric in the NT, and particularly in Matthew. Some scholars have claimed that the First Gospel presents essentially the same understanding of forgiveness as the OT.²⁸ David J. Reimer, however, has argued for the possibility of a gap between forgiveness in the OT and in the NT. Having studied carefully Jesus’ statements on forgiveness in Matt 6:12, 14–15 and 18:21–35, he notices that, unlike Matthew where Jesus’ statements on forgiveness place pivotal importance on interpersonal forgiveness, interpersonal forgiveness is virtually absent from the OT.²⁹ His essay published in 2007³⁰ examines carefully the relevant forgiveness texts in the LXX: stories of Jacob and Esau (Gen 32–33), Joseph and his brothers (Gen 45; 50:15–21), Saul and Samuel (1 Sam 15:24–31), David and Abigail-Nabal (1 Sam 25), and Shimei and David (2 Sam 16:5–14; 19:16–23; 1 Kings 2:8–9, 36–46), together with the narrative in Sir 28:1–7.

To the question of how to bridge the gap between the OT and NT (Matthew in particular) on the teaching about interpersonal forgiveness, Reimer proposes the so-called intertestamental period (Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha) as a possible place where theological sense could be made of the two Testaments.³¹ Most relevant in these materials to the subject under enquiry is Sirach (28:1–7, cp. 5:4–7; 17:25–32; 18:8–14). In his treatment of the Sirach text, Reimer makes a reasonable connection between Sir 28:1–4³² and other Sirach texts. He clearly shows, for example, how in Sir 5:4–7; 17:25–32; 18:8–14, notions of death and judgment sharpen the consideration of divine forgiveness. He points out that in Sir 28:1–2, this combination of traditional Jewish concepts of death as punishment for sin, obedience to the commandments of the law and loyalty to the covenant produces the conclusion that divine judgment can be influenced by human activity. Those who lack mercy, he argues, obstruct forgiveness from God when they seek it.³³ Aspects of the teaching about forgiveness contained in Sir 28:1–4 are similar to its teaching in Matt 6:12, 14–15; 18:23–35 (cp. Mark 11:25; Luke 11:14; Jas 2:13). Matt 18:23–35 particularly links forgiving to judgment quite explicitly. On the ground of this thematic connection between 18:23–35 and 6:12, 14–15, one may think of the idea of not being forgiven by the Father in 6:15 to mean punishment. Roger Mohrlang has the same opinion. Matt 6:14–15 is listed among the texts in which he thinks judgment is implicit.³⁴ The parallelism between Sir 28:1–4 and Matt 18:23–35 has made Reimer think of Sir 28:4 as a possible basis for the parable of the unmerciful debtor (18:23–35).³⁵ He suggests this from the conceptual structure of the two texts. This proposal is persuasive enough, and the present author endorses it. As an additional comment, because of the underlying idea of conditionality in them, a possibility that Reimer fails to notice, one may also think of Sir 28:1–7 as a possible basis for the teaching in 6:12, 14–15 (cp. 5:7; 7:1–2).

Two observations need to be noted here. Firstly, in both Sir 28:1–7 and Matt 6:12, 14–15, the concept of conditionality in forgiveness emerges in the context of prayer, a phenomenon which can also be observed in Mark 11:25[–26] and in Luke 11:2–4. The situation described in Sir 28:1–7 is closer to the one in Matt 6:9–15. In both texts, the connection between forgiveness and prayer seems to stress the importance of the horizontal and vertical relationships. Secondly, both passages connect the notion of reluctance in forgiveness to that of judgment. As will be shown later (ch. 4), in Sir 28:1–7, more than just being defined as disgrace, anger, and wrath are connected with the unforgiving people. This has a parallel in Matt 5:22 where anger with an ἀδελφός makes one liable to judgment. The emphasis here is clearly on God’s vengeance over those who eventually fail to forgive others. This same emphasis obviously underlies the teaching in Matt 18:23–35 (cp. 7:1–2) and is probably alluded to in 6:15 through the statement not being forgiven by the Father. Reimer concludes his reflexion as follows:

In the world of early Judaism and nascent Christianity, notions of interpersonal forgiveness overlap almost entirely. Despite the