The next occasion on which the name of Peter is mentioned in the
gospels, is his asking Jesus, “how many times he should forgive an
offending brother? If the brother should repeat the offense _seven_
times, should he each time accord him the forgiveness asked?” This
question was suggested to Peter’s mind, by the rules which Christ had
just been giving his disciples, for the preservation of harmony, and
for the redress of mutual grievances among them. His charge to them on
this subject, injoined the repeated exercise of forbearance towards a
brother who had trespassed, and urged the surrender of every imagined
right of private redress, to the authority and sanction of the common
assembly of the apostles. The absolute necessity of some such rule,
for the very existence of the apostles’ union, was plain enough. They
were men, with all the passions and frailties of common, uneducated
men, and with all the peculiar, fervid energy, which characterizes
the physiology of the races of south-western Asia. From the constant
attrition of such materials, no doubt individually discordant in
temperament and constitution, how could it be hoped, that in the
common course of things, there would not arise frequent bursts of human
passion, to mar or hinder the divine work which brought them together?
With a most wise providence for these liabilities to disagreement,
Jesus had just arranged a principle of reference and quiet decision, in
all cases of dispute in which the bond of Christian fellowship would be
strained or broken. His charge to them, all and each, was this: “If thy
brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between
thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother;
but if he will not hear thee, take with thee on thy second call, one or
two more, that, according to the standard forms of the Mosaic law, by
the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And
if he shall refuse to hear them, tell it at last to the common assembly
of the apostles; and after they have given their decision in favor
of the justice of the complaint and demand, if he still maintain his
enmity and wrong against thee, thou art no longer held by the apostolic
pledge to treat him with brotherly regard; but having slighted all
friendly advice, and the common sentiment of the brethren, he has lost
the privilege of their fellowship, and must be to thee as one of the
low world around him――a heathen and an outcast Jew.” On this occasion,
also, he renewed to them all, the commission to bind and loose, which
he had before particularly delivered only to Peter. As he had, in
speaking of the treatment, made abundant requisitions for the exercise
of forbearance, without mentioning the proper limit to these acts of
forgiveness, Peter now put his question: “If my brother sin against me
seven times, and as often make the reparation which I may honestly ask,
shall I continue to forgive him?” That is, “Shall I not seem, by these
repeated acts of forbearance, at last to be offering him inducements
to offend against one so placable? And if these transgressions are
thus enormously multiplied, will it not be right that I should withhold
the kind consideration which is made of so little account?” The answer
of Jesus is, “I say to thee, not merely till seven times, but till
seventy times seven.” That is, “To your forbearance towards an erring
and returning Christian brother, there should be no limit but his own
obstinate adhesion to his error. In coming out from the world to follow
me, you have given up your natural rights to avenge, either legally or
personally, those injuries which pass the bounds of common forbearance.
The preservation of perfect harmony in the new community to which
you have joined yourself, is of so much importance to the triumphant
advancement of our cause, as to require justly all these sacrifices
of personal ill-will.” With his usual readiness in securing an abiding
remembrance of his great leading rules of action, Jesus, on this
occasion, concluded the subject with illustrating the principle,
by a beautiful parable or story; a mode of instruction, far more
impressive to the glowing imagination of the oriental, than of the
more calculating genius of colder races.
This inquiry may have been suggested to Peter by a remark made
by Christ, which is not given by Matthew as by Luke, (xvii. 4.)
“If he sin against thee seven times in a day, and seven times
turn again, &c. thou shalt forgive him.” So Maldorat suggests,
but it is certainly very hard to bring these two accounts to
a minute harmony, and I should much prefer to consider Luke as
having given a general statement of Christ’s doctrine, without
referring to the occasion or circumstances, while Matthew
has given a more distinct account of the whole matter. The
discrepancy between the two accounts has seemed so great, that
the French harmonists, Newcome, LeClerc, Macknight, Thirlwall,
and Bloomfield, consider them as referring to totally different
occasions,――that in Matthew occurring in Capernaum, but that
in Luke, after his journey to Jerusalem to the feast of the
tabernacles. But the utter absence of all chronological order in
the greater part of Luke’s gospel, is enough to make us suspect,
that the event he alludes to may coincide with that of Matthew’s
story, since the amount of the precept, and the general form of
expression, is the same in both cases. This is the view taken by
Rosenmueller, Kuinoel, Vater, Clarke, Paulus, and which seems to
be further justified by the consideration, that the repetition
of the precept must have been entirely unnecessary, after having
been so clearly laid down, and so fully re-examined in answer to
Peter’s inquiry, as given by Matthew.
_Seven times._――This number was a general expression among
the Hebrews for a frequent repetition, and was perfectly vague
and indefinite as to the number of repetitions, as is shown
in many instances in the Bible where it occurs. _Seventy times
seven_, was another expression of the recurrences carried to
a superlative number, and is also a standard Hebraism, (as in
Genesis iv. 24.) See Poole, Lightfoot, Clarke, Scott, and other
commentators, for Rabbinical illustrations of these phrases.
_A heathen and an outcast._――This latter expression I have
chosen, as giving best the full force of the name _publican_,
which designated a class of men among the Jews, who were
considered by all around them as having renounced national
pride, honor and religion, for the base purpose of worldly gain;
serving under the Roman government as tax-gatherers, that is,
hiring the taxes of a district, which they took by paying the
government a definite sum, calculating to make a rich profit
on the bargain by systematic extortion and oppression. The
name, therefore, was nearly synonymous with the modern word
renegade,――one who, for base motives, has renounced the creed
and customs of his fathers.