In (1 Samuel 24:16-21), King Saul tearfully admits that he has done wrong to David. He had sought David’s life, but David had shown him mercy. David's mercy on that occasion represents the way that the Lord Himself meets evil with mercy. It’s clear that we’re meant to follow that example. In the gospels, the Lord says that we’re to love even our enemies (Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:35).

Because David showed mercy to Saul, there was a reconciliation between them. That wouldn’t have happened if he’d struck back at Saul. But, not long after that, Saul is hunting for David life again, to try to kill him. So much for their reconciliation! And... David shows mercy to Saul again, and Saul repents, again. But it’s clear that David doesn’t trust Saul anymore. He and Saul go their separate ways, and here’s the very next thing that the Word tells us:

And David said in his heart, “Now I shall perish someday by the hand of Saul. There is nothing better for me than that I should speedily escape to the land of the Philistines; and Saul will despair of me, to seek me anymore in any part of Israel. So I shall escape out of his hand.” (1 Samuel 27:1)

Saul had said, “I will harm you no more” (1 Samuel 26:21), but it’s clear that David no longer believes those sorts of promises from Saul. And who can blame him?

It’s still a good thing that he showed mercy to Saul — that he forbade his companion to stab the king while he was sleeping (1 Samuel 26:8). The Lord wants us to meet evil with mercy. Over and over He tells us to forgive. But what are we supposed to do when people seem to treat our forgiveness as carte blanche to do the bad stuff all over again? How do we show mercy to people who are actively doing things that hurt us — or to people that we don’t feel safe with, because of a pattern that’s been established over time? Let's explore that. In a nutshell, it IS possible for us to love people and protect ourselves from them at the same time. How?

Here's something that the Lord says about how we balance reconciliation with setting boundaries, in Matthew 18:15-17. These instructions outline the process that the Lord wants us to follow when someone is doing things that hurt us.

"If your brother sins against you, go, show him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained back your brother. But if he doesn't listen, take one or two more with you, that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the assembly. If he refuses to hear the assembly also, let him be to you as a Gentile or a tax collector.

He says, “if your brother sins against you” (Matthew 18:15), but it’s pretty clear that He’s using that word “brother” to mean our neighbor in general (see Arcana Coelestia 2360:6, 7; Apocalypse Explained 746:15).

These instructions apply whenever someone that we have a relationship with is doing something that hurts us.

The last thing the Lord says is that if we can’t work it out with our “brother,” we’re to treat him as “a heathen and a tax collector” (Matthew 18:17). If that’s the only part of these instructions that we pay attention to, then they sound pretty harsh. But if that’s the only part of these instructions that we pay attention to, then we’re missing the whole point — which is that we mustn’t jump straight from having a problem with someone to shunning them. There’s a process that we’re meant to follow, and we’re meant to take it one step at a time, and we’re only meant to go to that last step if we absolutely have to. As human beings, we’re prone to all-or-nothing thinking. This is especially true if we’re mad at someone, or if their behavior is making us feel unsafe. We think, “either I’m close to this person, and there are no boundaries between us, or I’ve separated myself from them and there’s no bond between us.” Cognitively we may know that it doesn’t have to be like that, but often our emotions say that that’s the way it needs to be. It takes maturity and it takes wisdom to hold the middle ground — to acknowledge and address the harm that another person’s behavior is doing to us, without completely cutting ourselves off from that person. It isn’t the easiest or the most natural path to take. But it’s the path the Lord asks us to take.

He says that if our brother sins against us, the first step is to, “go and tell him his fault between you and him alone” (Matthew 18:15). It makes a lot of sense that this is the first step. If you have a problem with someone, talk to them about it. The thing is, we need to make sure that this is the first step we take. Step two is to get other people involved, and sometimes we take step two before we take step one. We complain to our friends about the person who’s offended us, before we’ve even talked to that person about their behavior. When we do that, we usually just sink deeper into resentment. Sometimes we want to get advice before we talk to the person who’s hurt us — and it can be appropriate to seek advice from a mentor or a professional. But we need to not make the problem someone else’s business. At least not right away. If you’re upset with someone, start by talking to them as one grown up to another. This is what gives us the best shot at actual reconciliation. The Lord says, “… if your brother sins against you go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother” (Matthew 18:15).

Obviously this doesn’t mean that we should put ourselves into dangerous situations. If someone’s hurt us badly enough, it might not feel safe to meet with them one-on-one. The spirit of this teaching is that we mustn’t skip step one unless we have to. And there are things that we can do to protect ourselves during that initial conversation. We can take a leaf out of David’s book, and talk to the person who’s hurt us from a distance (1 Samuel 26:13). Talk to them on the phone, or write a letter. Or we can have the conversation in a public place, like a restaurant, where we’ll feel safer.

If we have that one-on-one conversation and our brother still refuses to hear us, then the Lord says we can take with us “one or two more.” (Matthew 18:15). In other words, at that point we can get other people involved, if we need to. Just one or two people. We’re not supposed to rally a posse — that’s escalating too fast. And of course, it’s important to pick the right people. The people we involve should be wise, level-headed people. Ideally, they’ll be people who are trusted by both ourselves and the person we have a grievance with, because those people can build bridges and act as mediators. We need to bear in mind that when we get third parties involved, we are escalating things, and there’s a chance that the person we have a grievance with will feel ganged up on and react badly. If we need to get other people involved, the Lord says that we can — but we shouldn’t take this step unless we have to.

The third step is to “tell it to the church” (Matthew 18:17). This doesn’t mean that we should air our grievances with each other when we gather for refreshments after worship. The Greek word here translated as “church” (ἐκκλησία) really just means “gathering,” or “assembly.” So the Lord’s point is that if someone won’t listen to us or change their hurtful behavior — though we and a handful of trusted people have talked to them about it — then we’re allowed to speak openly about our grievance. We can get our community involved, if that’s a useful thing to do. Perhaps “telling it to the church” implies that we’re allowed to seek some sort of public arbitration. In ancient times, the leaders of the church would have done that sort of thing. Nowadays, if we want public arbitration we usually go to court.

The last step, according to the Lord’s words in Matthew 18, is to regard our brother as “a heathen and a tax collector” (Matthew 18:17). This doesn’t mean that we’re allowed to disdain or revile or hate the person we have a problem with — we’re never allowed to do those things. It simply means that if all else fails, and the person who hurt us is continuing to hurt us, we’re allowed to separate ourselves from them. We’re allowed to treat them as someone who isn’t part of our sphere. In practice, this would involve limiting our interactions and communications with the person who’s hurt us.

The Lord says that we’re allowed to do these kinds of things — we’re allowed to set boundaries, if we have to. But there’s a process to follow. We can’t escalate straight from getting our feelings hurt to cutting ties with the offender. And here’s the really challenging part: right after the Lord says these things about the boundaries we’re allowed to set, He has this conversation with His disciples:

Then Peter came to Him and said, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?”

Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.” (Matthew 18:21-22)

In the Heavenly Doctrine of the New Church we’re told that “seventy times seven” means “always, without counting” (Apocalypse Explained 257:4, 391:21).

In our recitation from Luke the Lord says something similar:

If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns to you, saying, “I repent,” you shall forgive him. (Luke 17:3, 4)

The Lord says that we’re allowed to set boundaries, but He also says that we need to forgive people every single time they hurt us. And the whole point of this sermon is that we can do both at the same time. Forgiveness is not the same thing as giving people permission to treat us badly. To forgive someone is to give up your right to hold that person beneath yourself, in your mind and in your heart. To forgive is to give up the right to hate. This is something we do for our own sake, for the sake of our own peace, because hate poisons the soul.

In a way, forgiving a person isn’t even about the person we forgive. To forgive is to get ourselves right with the Lord. When Joseph’s brothers asked him for forgiveness, he answered, “am I in the place of God?” (Genesis 50:19). In other words, he said that it wasn’t his job to either judge his brothers or absolve them of their sins. That was God’s job. Determining whether or not another human being is worthy of forgiveness isn’t our job. We are commanded to love our neighbors — to love even our enemies — and that commandment governs every interaction that we have with every other human being. And if we’re going to love someone, we cannot hold on to resentment. We cannot give ourselves permission to hate. But loving a person and setting boundaries with them can happen simultaneously. To hold on to that truth is to hold a space in the middle, to steer clear of “either-or” thinking — either we’re close and there are no boundaries, or we’ve separated and there is no love. To hold that middle space takes wisdom and maturity — and that’s what the Lord asks of us.

We’re going to wrap up by looking at a passage from the Heavenly Doctrine, a passage that describes the way the angels treat us when we choose evil.

The angels are always with us, protecting us in ways that we can neither see nor feel. (Arcana Coelestia 5854)

It’s good that they’re there! In a different passage we’re told that if they weren’t present with us, we would “immediately perish” (SH 50). But those angels can’t be present in the midst of evil thoughts or evil affections — so when we choose evil, we push the angels away.

But they don’t go all the way away. When we choose evil they’re still with us — but remotely so. The deeper we sink into evil the further away they’re driven, but they’re still there. They’d prefer to be near to us: they’d prefer to love us up close. But if they can’t do that, they love us from a distance. Sometimes we assume that love and distance are mutually exclusive: that we’re either close to someone, or we can’t love them at all. But it isn’t so. We can follow the example of the angels. We can love from a distance, if we have to. The angels themselves are following the example of the Lord — who will not say that evil is good, who is nonetheless ready to forgive, and abundant in mercy to all who call upon Him (Psalms 86:5). ¹

അടിക്കുറിപ്പുകൾ:

395. Verse 11. And white robes were given to every one of them, signifies Divine truth from the Lord with them, and protection. This is evident from the signification of "a white robe" as being Divine truth from the Lord, for "robe" signifies truth in general, because it is a general covering; and "white" is predicated of truths which are from the Lord; for whiteness pertains to light, and the light proceeding from the Lord as a sun is in its essence Divine truth. That "white robes were given to everyone of them" signifies also protection, will be told further on; but let it first be told why "a white robe" signifies Divine truth from the Lord. All spirits and angels are clothed according to their intelligence, or according to their reception of truth in the life, this constituting intelligence; for the light of their intelligence is formed into garments, and when these are thus formed they do not merely appear as garments, but they also are garments. For all things that exist in the spiritual world, and appear before the eyes of those there, exist from the light and heat that proceed from the Lord as a sun; from that origin have been created and formed not only all things in the spiritual world, but also all things in the natural world; for the natural world exists and subsists by means of the spiritual world from the Lord. From this it can be seen that the appearances that exist in heaven before the angels are altogether real; in like manner also the garments. As spirits and angels are clothed according to intelligence, and all intelligence is of truth, and angelic intelligence is of Divine truth, so they are clothed according to truths; this is why "garments" signify truths; "the garments" that are next to the body, that is, the inner garments, signify interior truths; but the garments that are outside of these and encompass them, signify exterior truths; therefore "a robe," "a mantle," and "a cloak," which are general coverings, signify truths in general, and "a white robe" Divine truth in general, which they have from the Lord. (But see what has been shown respecting The Garments with which Angels are Clothed, in the work on Heaven and Hell 177-182; and what has been said above about the signification of garments, n. 64-65, 195, 271.)

[2] "There were given to those who were under the altar white robes" signifies also protection by the Lord, because "the white robes" given to them represented the presence about them of the Lord with Divine truth; and by means of Divine truth the Lord protects His own, for He surrounds them with a sphere of light, from which they have white robes; and when encompassed by this sphere they can no longer be infested by evil spirits; for, as said above, they were infested by evil spirits, and were therefore hidden by the Lord. This also takes place with those who are elevated by the Lord into heaven. They are then clothed with white garments, which is an indication that they are in Divine truth, and thus in safety. But respecting those who were clothed in white robes more will be shown in the explanation of the following chapter (Revelation 7:9, 13-17).

[3] That "robe," "mantle," and "cloak" signify Divine truth in general can be seen also from the following passages. In Zechariah:

The prophets shall be ashamed every man of his vision which he hath prophesied; neither shall they wear a mantle of hair to dissemble (Zechariah 13:4).

"Prophets" signify those who teach truths from the Word, and in an abstract sense, the truths of doctrine from the Word; and because of this signification of "prophets" they were clothed with a mantle of hair, "the mantle of hair" signifying Divine truth in ultimates, which is Divine truth in general, for the ultimate contains all things interior; "hair," too, signifies the ultimate. This is why:

Elijah, from his mantle, was called a hairy man (2 Kings 1:7-8);

And John the Baptist, who was as Elijah by reason of a like representation, had a garment of camel's hair (Matthew 3:4).

This makes clear the signification of "the prophets shall not wear a mantle of hair to dissemble," namely, that they shall not declare truths to be falsities, and falsities to be truths; this is what is signified by "dissembling."

[4] Because Elijah represented the Lord in relation to the Word, which is the doctrine of truth itself, and Elisha continued the representation, and because "mantle" signified Divine truth in general, which is the Word in ultimates, so the mantle divided the waters of Jordan, according to the following in the books of the Kings:

When Elijah found Elisha he cast his mantle upon him (1 Kings 19:19).

Elijah took his mantle, and wrapped it together, and smote the waters of Jordan, and they were divided hither and thither, and they two passed over on the dry ground (2 Kings 2:8).

Elisha seeing when Elijah was carried up by a whirlwind into heaven, took up the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and went back, and stood by the bank of Jordan; and he took that mantle and smote the waters; and they were divided hither and thither, and he passed over (2 Kings 2:12-14).

"Elijah's casting his mantle upon Elisha" signified the transference to Elisha of the representation of the Lord in relation to the Word; and that "the mantle fell from Elijah when he was taken away, and was taken up by Elisha," signified that this representation was then transferred to Elisha, for Elijah and Elisha represented the Lord in relation to the Word, and they were clothed according to what they represented, "the mantle" signifying the Word in which is Divine truth in general, or Divine truth in the whole complex. "The dividing of the waters of Jordan by Elijah's mantle," first by Elijah and afterwards by Elisha, signified the power of Divine truth in ultimates; "the waters of Jordan" signifying, moreover, the first truths through which there is introduction into the church, and these first truths are such as are in the ultimates of the Word. From this, too, it can be seen that "a mantle" and "a robe" signify Divine truth in general. (That "Elijah" represented the Lord in relation to the Word, so, too, "Elisha," see Arcana Coelestia 2762, 5247. That the ultimate contains the interior things, and thus signifies all things in general, n. 634, 6239, 6465, 9215, 9216, 9828; that thus strength and power are in ultimates, n. 9836; that "Jordan" signifies the entrance into the church, and thus "the waters of Jordan" signify the first truths through which there is entrance, n. 1585, 4255; and that "waters" mean truths, see above, n. 71.) First truths are also ultimate truths, such as are in the sense of the letter of the Word, for through these entrance is effected, for these are first learned, and in them are all interior things which constitute the internal sense of the Word.

[5] One who does not know what "robe" or "mantle" signifies, does not know what "cloak" signifies, for a cloak, as well as a mantle, was a general garment, encompassing the tunic or inner garment, therefore it has a like signification. Neither does he know what was signified by Saul's rending the skirt of Samuel's cloak; by David's cutting off the skirt of Saul's cloak; by Jonathan's giving David his cloak and garments; and by kings' daughters being arrayed in cloaks of various colors; neither does he know the meaning of many other passages in which cloaks are mentioned in the Word. Of Saul's rending the skirt of Samuel's cloak, we read:

Samuel turned to go away, but he laid hold upon the skirt of his cloak and it was rent. And Samuel said, Jehovah hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to thy companion, who is better than thou (1 Samuel 15:27-28).

The words of Samuel make clear that "the rending of the skirt of the cloak" signified the rending of the kingdom from Saul, for he said after it was done, "Jehovah hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day," "a king" and "his kingdom" signifying the Divine truth of the church, and "the skirt of a cloak" signifying Divine truth in ultimates, that is, all Divine truth in general; for the kings that were over the sons of Israel represented the Lord in relation to Divine truth, and their kingdom signified the church in relation to Divine truth; therefore this historical fact signifies that king Saul was such that he could no longer represent the Lord, and that the representation of the church would perish if the kingdom were not rent from him. (That "kings" represented the Lord in relation to Divine truth, and thus "a kingdom" signified the church in relation to Divine truth, see above, n. 29, 31.)

[6] The same is signified by David's cutting off the skirt of Saul's cloak, of which we read:

David entered into the cave where Saul was, and cut off the skirt of his cloak, and when he afterwards showed it to Saul, Saul said, Now I know that thou shalt reign, and the kingdom of Israel shall be established in thy hand (1 Samuel 24:3-5, 11, 20).

This was done by David of Divine Providence, that the like might be represented as above, "the skirt of the cloak," and "King Saul and his kingdom," having the like meaning as above.

[7] That Jonathan the son of Saul stripped himself of his cloak and his garments, and gave them to David, of which we read as follows, has a like signification:

Jonathan stripped off the cloak that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, and even his sword and his bow and even to his girdle (1 Samuel 18:4).

This signified that Jonathan, the heir of the kingdom, transferred all his right to David; for all the things that Jonathan gave to David were representative of the kingdom, that is, of the Divine truth of the church, which Saul represented; for as was said above, all the kings who were over the sons of Israel represented the Lord in relation to Divine truth, and their kingdom represented the church in relation to Divine truth.

[8] Because "cloaks" and "robes" signify Divine truth in general:

The king's daughters that were virgins were clad in robes of diverse colors (2 Samuel 13:18).

"The king's daughters that were virgins" signified the affections of truth, and thus the church, as can be seen from a thousand passages in the Word in which "the king's daughter," "the daughter of Zion," "the daughter of Jerusalem," also "the virgin of Zion," and "the virgin of Jerusalem" are mentioned; therefore "the king's daughters" represented also the truths of that affection by their garments, and in general by their robes, which, were therefore, variegated with diverse colors. So also truths from good, or truths from affection, are represented by the garments of the virgins in heaven; which truths are more fully described by:

The garments of the king's daughter (Psalms 45:9-10, 13-14).

[9] As mourning in the Ancient Churches signified spiritual mourning, which is from the deprivation of truth, they represented this in their mourning, then by rending their mantles or cloaks, as is evident in Job:

When Job had lost all things, then he arose, rent his mantle, and said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return (Job 1:20-21).

Job's three friends, when they saw him, wept and rent their cloaks (Job 2:12).

(That "rending the garments" was a representative of mourning because of truth injured or destroyed, see Arcana Coelestia 4763.) And again in Ezekiel:

All the princes of the sea shall come down from their thrones, and shall put away their cloaks and strip off their broidered garments; they shall be clothed with terrors; they shall sit upon the earth (Ezekiel 26:16).

This is said of Tyre, which signifies the church in respect to the knowledges of truth and good, here the church where these are destroyed. That there are no longer any truths through which there can be a church, is signified by "all the princes of the sea shall come down from their thrones;" "the princes of the sea" meaning true primary knowledges [scientifica]; "to come down from thrones" signifying that these have been destroyed, and consequently that there is no intelligence. The like is signified by "they shall cast away their cloaks and strip off their broidered garments," "cloaks" meaning truths in general, and "broidered garments" the knowledges of truth; the consequent damnation is signified by "they shall be clothed with terrors; they shall sit upon the earth."

[10] In Micah:

My people have set up an enemy for themselves for the sake of a garment; ye strip off the mantle from them that pass by securely, returning from war (Micah 2:8).

These words do not mean that "the sons of Israel have set up an enemy for the sake of a garment, and have stripped off the mantle from those that pass by securely;" but they mean that they held as enemies those who spoke truths, and deprived of all truth those who had lived well and had shaken off falsities, "garment" meaning truth, "mantle" all truth because it means truth in general; "to pass by securely" means to live well; "men returning from war" mean those who have shaken off falsities, "war" meaning the combat of truth against falsity. Who cannot see that this is the spiritual meaning of the Word; and not that the people of Israel held some one as an enemy for the sake of a garment, or stripped off the mantle from those who passed by?

[11] In Matthew:

The scribes and Pharisees do all their works that they may be seen of men, and make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their robes (Matthew 23:5).

This the scribes and Pharisees did, but it also represented and signified that they talked about, and applied to life and to their traditions many things from the ultimates of the Word, in order that they might appear holy and learned. "Their phylacteries which they make broad," signify goods in outward form, for "phylacteries" were worn upon the hands, and "hands" signify deeds, because these are done by the hands; "the borders of their robes which they enlarge," signify external truths; external truths are those that are in the ultimate sense of the letter; "robes" mean truths in general, and "borders" their ultimates. (That "borders of robes" signify such truths, see Arcana Coelestia 9917.)

[12] In Isaiah:

I will rejoice in Jehovah, my soul shall exult in my God; for He hath clothed me with the garments of salvation; He hath covered me with the robe of righteousness (Isaiah 61:10).

"To rejoice in Jehovah" signifies to rejoice in Divine good; "to exult in God" signifies to exult in Divine truth; for the Lord is called "Jehovah" from Divine good, and "God" from Divine truth, and from these is all spiritual joy. "To clothe with the garments of salvation" signifies to instruct and to gift with truths; and "to cover with the robe of righteousness" signifies to fill with every truth from good, "robe" meaning all truth, because it means truth in general, and "righteousness" is predicated of good.

[13] In the same:

He put on the garments of vengeance, and covered Himself with zeal as with a robe (Isaiah 59:17).

This is said of the Lord and of His combat with the hells; for when He was in the world He reduced all things in the hells and in the heavens to order, and this by Divine truth from Divine love. "Garments of vengeance" signify the truths by which, and "zeal as a robe" the Divine love from which this was done; "robe" is mentioned to signify that it was done through Divine truths from Divine love. (But what "the robe of the ephod" signifies, in which Aaron was arrayed, and upon the borders of which were pomegranates and bells, of which in Exodus 28:31-35 and Leviticus 8:7, see Arcana Coelestia 9910-9928).