Should Forgiveness be "Unconditional"?

I accept your "minority viewpoint." I just finished reading your article as part of my devotionals for today.

Thanks, Ed.

I find the subject of "forgiveness" to be a pet peeve of mine. I will be reading along in a theological or Christian living-type book enjoying the author and suddenly he will start talking about "forgiveness" in an unbiblical way (forgive everyone unconditionally even if they don't repent or ask for forgiveness, etc., etc.). I have seen the idea of "forgiveness" stretched until it broke such as when Billy Graham "forgave" Bill Clinton for his immorality (even before Clinton admitted he had done anything wrong) or when a missionary here in Liberia went to the jail to "forgive" the man who had just raped his daughter and killed his wife; he then went on to tell the police to release the killer since he had "forgiven" him.

I have always believed that we should forgive as God forgave us (Eph. 4:32) for some time now but this doctrine been solidified a lot through books I have read and the training in nouthetic counseling I received through Faith Baptist Church in Lafayette, IN. I think the main problem with Christians is that they define the word "forgiveness" in a nebulous, unbiblical way that encompasses everything from true forgiveness to getting rid of bad feelings about someone. I believe the main confusion is over holding bitterness in your heart against someone who has wronged you and/or wishing for (planning for?) revenge. The Bible makes it clear that we should not be the ones that seek vengeance but should trust God to make things right (Rom. 12:17-21) and that we should not harbor bitterness towards anyone - even those who have wronged us greatly (Heb. 12:14-15). I think the problem comes in when people releases this bitterness and desire for vengeance and they regain the joy of the Lord in their lives it feels so great that they want to call this "forgiveness." As a matter of a fact, in the afore-mentioned books it usually is evident that if the author would just replace his uses of the word "forgive" with "release bitterness and trust God to make things right" the book would become much more biblical.

We must follow the Biblical principles of forgiveness found in Luke 17:3-4 (brother sins - he repents - comes and asks forgiveness - you forgive), Eph. 4:32 (forgive as God forgave us - we first repented, asked God for forgiveness, then God forgave) 1 John 1:9 (agree with God about your sin - He forgives our sin and cleanses us from all unrighteousness), and other verses. If we don't, we cause problems both for the "forgiver" and the "forgivee."

First, the forgiver: the Bible has given us principles to follow when someone has done wrong to us in Matt. 5:24, Matt. 18:15-18, Gal. 6:1, etc. If we have been wronged and do not follow these principles in regards to other Christians, we are doing them no kindness. They need to face their sin and repent of it, not just be "forgiven." It is the easy way out ("oh, it's no problem, I just forgave him") but it allows other Christians to remain in sin (sometimes unknowingly) without confrontation for the purpose of reconciliation.

Also, it is important to follow the Biblical forgiveness process in cases where someone has sinned for the sake of the forgiver and the forgivee: 1. offender sins; 2. person offended confronts this person; 3. offender repents of sin and apologizes; 4. the offended person then forgives him (verbally). This last step is very important for the forgiver since it marks his obligation to forgive someone who truly repents. Some, when they are asked, "Will you forgive me," will say something like "no need for forgiveness," "oh, I've already forgotten about that," or "I have already forgiven you." This breaks the forgiveness process and does not produce the true reconciliation demanded by the Bible (2 Cor. 5:18-19).

It also can create some very difficult problems in our obligations to other people in the world around us: if you unilaterally forgive the rapist, thief, or murderer you may feel you have no obligation to report this to the authorities and in the end cause rape, robbery or murder to happen to someone else.

Secondly, improper forgiveness hurts the offender. It allows him to continue in sin (sometimes unknowingly) without being made to face what he has done and how it affects his relationship with God and others, it does not allow the Matt. 18 principles to work in his life, and it short-circuits the confrontation-repentance-reconciliation process outlined by the Bible. Why should the offender apologize and ask for forgiveness if he has already been forgiven?

The only place in the Bible where these principles of forgiveness do not seem to be taught is where Christ asked God to forgiven those crucifying Him (Lk. 23:34) and Stephen asked God to not make those who stoned him accountable for what they had done (Acts 7:60). However, I agree with Ed's assessment that this was an appeal to God not to zap them for their current sin of murder, not an overall forgiveness - otherwise this would mean that all who crucified Jesus would go to heaven when they died.

Ed, I very much appreciate your approach. I have been around the thought that if person X has wronged person Y then person Y was the one responsible for going to person X and forgiving them. As you so ably pointed out, this does not sit well with the theology of forgiveness.

Regarding the Luke passage for others, Matthew Henry's commentary puts it like this: "Now the sayings of Christ upon the cross as well as his sufferings had a further intention than they seemed to have. This was a mediatorial word, and explicatory of the intent and meaning of his death: "Father, forgive them, not only these, but all that shall repent, and believe the gospel;’’ and he did not intend that these should be forgiven upon any other terms. " Jesus' intent was not immediate forgiveness, but the opportunity for forgiveness.

A great book on this subject is located here: http://www.chrisbrauns.com/unpackingforgiveness/

Hey Ed. I agree with Ted that I always appreciate your insight. A few questions though.

How does Psalm 51 fit in where David says, 'against you, you only have I sinned'. If I remember correctly, my Hebrew prof at college had said the OT frame of thought was that we sin against God, but ?offend? people. (I cannot remember the word he used in reference to other people, so don't quote me on that.)

Second, yes, we need to forgive as Christ forgave, but are there points at which this breaks down?(forgiving unconditionally) For example, if Christ forgives conditionally on our repentance (I would assume true repentance), then I would need to know if the transgressor is truly repentant, would I not? Or is this where it breaks down?

I think this captures the "wise as a serpent" part of the Bible's teaching on prayer. But I do think scripture has another side to it. Realistically I don't disagree with what you're saying... But the other side is present as well

"How many times should I forgive my brother"? Peter was expecting an answer like yours... but Jesus doesn't answer "well, it depends if he's repentant or not". or "well, if he keeps having to ask forgiveness clearly he hasn't really repented" - I'm really hesitant to write off Matthew as a misinterpretation.

Hello Pastor Vasicek,

I actually do take the opposite approach to the subject. I think that this is a great subject to be explored and rarely have I read something on either side of this discussion where I feel as if the whole matter has been treated.

Here is the basis of my disagreement. It really all has to do with the way you interpret Ephesians 4:32. Under “manner of forgiveness” you quote this verse. Then you immediately begin your next section with “God’s manner of forgiveness requires our repentance.” Your argument then seems to be that we are to forgive others in the same manner that God forgave us—hence, Ephesians 4:32.

But Ephesians 4:32 isn’t discussing the process of forgiveness. Paul has been instructing the Ephesians to order their lives differently from the lives of the heathen around them. They live in the futility of their mind being darkened in their understanding…because of the hardness of their heart. They are living according to something that Paul calls our “old self.” This is why they lie, lose their tempers, steal, speak corrupting things, and grieve the Holy Spirit. This is why they are full of bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander…. Instead of living that way we should order our lives according to our new self, our Christ-self. We should tell the truth, be self-controlled, work so we can give to others, and speak words that build people up spiritually. We should be kind and forgiving. Why should we be forgiving? Didn’t God forgive us? I don’t think the process of forgiveness is being taught here. Instead, I would argue that we are being taught the intensity or depth of our forgiveness. I might even argue that we are to be forgiving others based on our mutual relationship with Christ (this is referring to “one another.”)

If you take Ephesians 4:32 to be referring to the process of forgiveness then obviously you can only forgive as the offending party repents. That is the basis by which God forgave me. If you take it in one of the other ways that I mentioned then this process falls apart.

The other passage often cited is in Luke 17:3-4 where Jesus says: " Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' forgive him." The teaching is clear. If someone sins against us and repents, then we must forgive them. But what if they do not repent? Are we free to withhold forgiveness? That’s the inference your article. If someone does not repent then what? Actually, Jesus doesn’t address that situation. To infer that we are free to withhold forgiveness at this point is to read into the text our own opinion, isn’t it?

Finally, I would say that there are other passages that make such a strong statement supporting the “forgive whether the offending party repents or not position” so as to decide this clearly for me.

What about Luke 6:27-36? How should we treat those who hurt us? Jesus says (1) love them, (2) do good to them, (3) bless them, and (4) pray for them. Now how can I love someone, do them good, bless them, and pray for them, and not forgive them at the same time? Suppose a man hits me in the face and then he says to me, “I’m glad I did it and I’d do it again if I had the chance.” Clearly, he’s not repentant. What if he steals my coat and says, “I’m glad I did it and I’d do it again if I had the chance.” How should I treat him? Shouldn’t I love him in return offering up the other cheek and offering up my shirt? By the way, isn’t this how God is toward those who are ungrateful and evil? I do not see how it is possible that I can “be merciful, just as your Father is merciful” and not forgive someone.

I think that if we boldly applied this to our own situation we would be more apt to forgive…even those who would rather die than say “I’m sorry.”

Two things I see from here.
1. This goes against the Luke 17 passage that talks about your brother trespassing against you. The first thing we are told to do is to rebuke them. It goes on to say "if" that brother repents, then you are to forgive him. We are not the judge of the level of repentance, but the forgiveness comes after the acknowledgment and turning from the trespass. The hallmark forgiveness passage that every good fundamentalist goes to is 1 John 1:9. There, the offender is the one to acknowledge their sin prior to forgiveness.
2. Forgiving the unrepentant only works if one believes that all are forgiven. That would be inconsistent with the nature of Christ's forgiveness. I addressed Jesus' words on the cross in an earlier post. I realize I referenced Matthew Henry's commentary, but others show very similar outcomes.

From another commentary

Forgiveness is a wonderful doctrinal aspect of Salvation. In the NT it is various forms of the word "aphiemi" and appears 140 times. However it appears but 14 times outside the Gospels. The Septuagint uses the word with the idea of to let go or release from." However, it is used with the idea of forgiveness with such Hebrew words such as "nasa"= to take away; guilt or sin; "salach" = to pardon; "kaphar" = to cover, make atonement. In the NT it is used of forgiveness of financial debt and of sins.

What does all this mean in regard to Salvation?

When we are saved we are united with Christ. As a result we are Justified and Regenerated. Our Justification means God declares us righteous. Our sins are imputed to Christ and His righteousness is imputed to us. It is used in a doctrinal sense with regard to salvation at Romans 4:7; James 5:15; 1John 1:9, 2:12. Forgiveness by God involves the removing or taking away of our sins as a barrier for receiving other blessings from Him and having fellowship with Him. Justification is a declaration insuring no charges against us with regard to our judgment before God. Forgiveness has to do with the taking away of our sins that they are not a practical barrier between us and a Holy God who cannot stand sin. Thus the Christian is involved with four kinds or aspects of forgiveness:

1. Initial Judicial Forgiveness: Received at the moment of belief in Christ. Conditioned on faith alone. This involves all sins committed before Justification.

2. Initial Fellowship Forgiveness : Received at the moment of belief in Christ. Involves removal of estrangement resulting from sins committed before Justification. This enables fellowship with a Holy God (1John 1:7).

3. Continuing Judicial Forgiveness: This occurs at the moment the Christian sins. It is based on the finished substitutionary work of Christ but occurs due to the continuing advocacy of Jesus Christ in Heaven as our High Priest (Heb. 7:20-28). This is unconditional for all those Justified.

4. Continuing Fellowship Forgiveness: Occurs when a Christian confesses sin committed. This involves the ministry of Jesus as High Priest but is conditional based upon our confession of sin (1 John 1:9). It restores our temporal fellowship with a Holy God.

The believer is Justified at the moment of Salvation which absolutely guarantees our salvation. We are never to be judged for our sin and have the very righteousness of Christ. The issue at the Bema Seat of Christ is our fruit and service not sin (2 Cor. 5:1-11).

Forgiveness goes beyond the Justification declaration and gives us fellowship with a Holy God by taking the sin issue out of the way and giving us both Judicial and temporal fellowship forgiveness. The fellowship is conditional based on forgiveness but does not set aside the completeness of our Salvation based on the finished work of Christ.

How does all this apply to sins and human relationships?

We are to turn the other cheek and love our enemies. This means no retaliation and to treat others as we would desire to be treated. This does not take away alienation due to sin. It does not forbid self defense. If we sin we are expected to confess to receive God's continuing fellowship forgiveness. If we sin against others we are expected to repent (change our mind resulting in turning from the sin) and confess to remove a barrier of fellowship. In some cases the forgiveness may be genuine involving a turning away and restore fellowship, but still disqualify for certain service such as Eldership.

In human relationships there are aspects of forgiveness that are unconditional and then some that are conditional. We must forgive based on God having already forgiving us. This is Grace. However, in order for fellowship to be restored with God and with us there is the necessity of confession of wrong and this may also involve repentance.

If it is of interest, you can take, The Forgiveness Quiz, which outlines what I address in Unpacking Forgiveness.

In interpreting Psalm 51:4, consider these alternate translations:

NET: Against you — you above all — I have sinned; I have done what is evil in your sight. So you are just when you confront me; you are right when you condemn me.
CEV: You are really the one I have sinned against; I have disobeyed you and have done wrong. So it is right and fair for you to correct and punish me.

Concerning the word "only," Strong notes: "properly separation; by implication a part of the body, branch of a tree, bar for carrying; figuratively chief of a city; especially (with prepositional prefix) as adverb, apart, only, besides...."

I've interpreted the "only" as "ultimately" (rather than "exclusively") in the sense that, were it not for the fact that God established moral law, there would be no transgression against another human being. In other words, all sin against my neighbor derives from my sin against God, who has established the moral framework for human relations.

Do we get a hint that this is the sense when later David acknowledges he's violated another human being by begging, "Deliver me from bloodguiltiness..."? He couldn't be guilty of blood if his sin was exclusively against God, since man can't shed God-as-spirit's "blood." But in shedding another man's blood--an obvious transgression against the victim--he has ultimately sinned against God.

Great article. I was teaching through 2 Corinthians a few years back and we came across the situation in chapter 2 where Paul said that you (Corinthians) need to forgive the one who committed fornication but then repented. This was about a year after Paul said to discipline this one (then unrepentant) out of the church. So in this case about a year went by before the one who had committed fornication repented. Until his repentance Paul in no way said that the Corinthians needed to forgive him.
The statement was then made that upon repentance one should forgive. The question then came up: what if one does not repent after sinning against you, do you forgive anyway? I said no. Then the fireworks started. You might think I denied the virgin birth of Christ. We spent the next two weeks going through this subject but I pointed out that forgiveness is based upon repentance. Nowhere in scripture do you see forgiveness without repentance. When Jesus said:

, He meant that this sin (of crucifying Jesus) be not held against them so that forgiveness could be obtained by the repenting sinner at a future date. Notice also Stephen: Lay not this sin to their charge (Acts 7:60). But that did not immediately forgive them ones stoning him, including Paul (then Saul). He would say later: I obtained forgiveness because I did it ignorantly in unbelief (1 Timothy 1:13).
Interestingly enough we are to seek the persons restoration. This involves confronting the unrepentant person. This work can be messy and gritty. We are commanded to do that. I'm afraid that some may use unconditional forgiveness as a cloak to avoid the process of restoring the sinning saint (Galatians 6:2).

Francis,

I'm somewhat concerned by the inference drawn from 2 Corinthians regarding the man who committed incest and was subsequently disciplined from the church. The forgiveness that Paul is referring to in 2 Corinthians is actually restoration to the church, not forgiveness over an offense. To infer that this situation somehow creates a process by which we are to forgive those who wrong us is a flying leap in logic...right?

Quote:
"If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. 4If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, 'I repent,' forgive him."

Hi Ed, I join the chorus to say that I, too, am greatly edified by your articles and have even circulated some around our local church body (women). I have a quick question: What does the "repent" look like here? Are we looking for only speech, or are we also looking for other indicators such as time lengths, sincerity, patterns, etc.? I'm sorry if I missed this explanation in your article or comments. I'll go back and read it if I'm duplicating efforts. Thanks!

Can I also offer a practical application here from my own experience? I've often found that it's useful when I'm the offender and adds to (my) sincerity, if, after the forgiveness process has been worked out to full reconciliation/resolution--I ask that person to hold me accountable in that area. I realize there are some qualifiers here, but for the most part, I've found it's good for my practical Christian life within my home! and church life and also good for the soul (very humbling). I hope this isn't too much of rabbit trail because I know this wasn't the original intent of the article, but thought it might be useful to some.

Thanks, Kim Noble

Ed, appreciate the article... and the discussion.

I think I mostly agree w/Ed's take, though the subject is complex and much rests on how you define "forgiveness." I think the key is understanding that forgiveness is a relational phenomenon. We have the opportunity to forgive folks who have some kind of relationship to us (even if the relationship is "stranger who backed into my car") and forgiving has to do with some kind of "release" (there are several words translated "forgive." If I remember right, more than suggests a letting go) in the context of that relationship.

So this is why--to use an example somebody mentioned above--it was wrongheaded for Billy Graham to "forgive" Clinton for his immorality. Clinton had not personally wronged him and the wrongs Clinton did commit were against God, his wife and his nation. So God could forgive him in the context of that relationship, the nation could forgive in the context of that relationship and his wife could forgive in the context of their relationship. But an individual believer cannot meaningfully forgive the actions of a president.

This is predicated on the idea that "forgive" is a behavioral word, not a feelings word. It's a decision not to hold a behavior against someone in your future interactions with them. You have freed them from what they owed you.

So I think there's alot of confusion between forgiveness as behavior and forgiveness as a feeling. I don't think the latter is a biblical way to look at it. The feelings involved are lingering resentment, fear, anger, etc., and they need to be dealt with but it's separate issue from forgiving, which is a commitment to treat the person as one who does not owe you anything (anymore).

At this point, I can't prove the "relational phenomenon" idea, but it certainly harmonizes several of the forgiveness complexities we find in the Bible. ... and just try imagining a scenario where forgiveness could be called for without there being a) a person who did something wrong, and b) a wronged party. There's your relationship.

As for whether we can "forgive" someone who does not admit wrong...
I'm still wrestling w/that one. I do believe we can overlook (Prov.19:11) wrong, and we can certainly "forbear" (Col.3:13) many small wrongs. These are unilateral acts. What I'm not sure of at this point is the exact difference between forbearing and forgiving and when one is called for vs. the other.
Ed.. have any thoughts on that?

Aaron, this post may also be helpful when considering which things should be pursued and which shouldn't.
http://www.chrisbrauns.com/2009/05/09/thinking-about-picking-a-fight-today-read-this/

I don't think it's really that hard. God doesn't 'forgive' sinners without repentance on their part..otherwise, they die in their sins and suffer the penalty. Is forgiveness available? Yes. But since they haven't 'admitted wrong', there is no forgiveness.

Am I overthinking this? Don't have time to link to passages now, but at least three or four popped into and out of mind.

--edit--
I thought about this passage, and actually deleted it from my post, but Kim caught it before I said something. Anyway, I'm not so sure that this passage applies, but I'm thinking of how Paul (I'm assuming it's Paul, anyway) is talking about there not being any sacrifice sufficient for people who despise the work of Christ. It's in Hebrews 10:

How can you interpret Ephesians 4:32 as eliciting a pattern (your word) or a process (my word) for forgiveness? To read "just as in Christ, God forgave you" to demonstrate a method of forgiveness is to read way to much into that verse, IMO.

Appreciate your response, Ed. That helps.
Jay, I think part of what makes the question a bit difficult for me as that although we are instructed to forgive "as God forgives/forgave," the statement doesn't necessarily mean "our forgiving should be like God's in every way." That then raises the question, "like God's forgiveness" in what way?

Again, looking at forgiveness as away of behaving toward someone (in mind as well as outward actions), if I treat him/her as forgiven, then he/she is forgiven with respect to my half of the relationship, regardless of whether he's repentant.
Perhaps for clarity it's best to not use the word "forgive" in that context and go with "overlook" or "forbear." I'm not sure. As Ed pointed out, it's not always possible to do this. Sometimes, in an ongoing relationship, you have responsibilities that preclude allowing a person to continue to treat you a certain way (as an extreme example, you can't let somebody keep hitting you). And avoiding/preventing that involves not interacting with this person in a "forgiven" sort of way until repentance has occurred. In that case, you can't let your guard down, which would seem to be a way of not treating this person like you have forgiven him.
I may be confusing categories here, but I'm not sure. If you treat a person who has wronged you like you do not trust him, can he not accurately complain that you have not forgiven him? If forgiving is a releasing of a person from what they owe you (for their offense)...

I'm out of time and mostly thinking out loud here. I want to think it through because I want to be able to properly apply principles to the whole range of real world scenarios

Because they're still enemies. If they would repent of their offense - whatever it is - then they're not enemies anymore, are they? Paul repented for calling the High Priest a whitewashed wall, but he did it because he was not aware that he was a 'ruler of the people'. When he was aware of his sin, his behavior and attitude changed immediately, but that doesn't mean that the High Priest was reconciled to him or Jesus (for that matter). We SHOULD be willing to forgive whatever offense immediately because of the forgiveness that we have in Christ (see the parable of the unforgiving servant).

It's in spite of the fact that they are our enemies that we are called to love, do good, bless, etc.

Yup, I think you hit the nail on the head. I'd say Yes, it is required.

Mark, at least in my mind, this does not contradict unconditional forgiveness. Let me say this, from what I have seen, there seems to be at least two groups within the unconditional camp, those who believe we forgive even before someone asks for forgiveness(I am pretty sure I don't agree with this) and those who believe forgiveness is always granted whenever a person asks. And I think the latter fits with the Luke passage. For what does it mean for a person to repent, practically? (this is another pivotal question) And who are they repenting to?

As a side, people keep saying how others are confusing forgiveness with a feeling, where is this and can someone clarify this position? I don't understand it.

John3:16 says, "God so loved the world" or as some translate it, "This is how God loved the world." God loves us with His infinite love and yet doesn't forgive us until we repent and ask for forgiveness. Not forgiving someone who has not repented ≠ being unloving, doing bad to someone, cursing someone or refusing to pray for someone. We can do all of these things for the someone who has done the worst things to us but this does not necessitate that we forgive the person until he has repented.

In regards to mercy, God is merciful to all, even those who reject Him and refuse to repent and accept Christ as Savior. However even though God loves an unsaved person, is merciful to him, and provides him with many blessings, he will still die and go to hell if he does not repent of His sin, ask God for forgiveness and accept Christ as Savior.

Right. People are hurt when someone sins against them, and it is not wrong to be hurt. As part of the reconciliation process the offender needs to acknowledge and apologize for hurting someone.

However hating someone and wishing for his grand failure or death is sin. And when people release those sinful, hateful feelings they feel much better themselves, but this is not the same as forgiveness.

The “if he repents, forgive him” does not mean “if he doesn’t repent, don’t forgive him.” This is one of the logical fallacies that D.A. Carson addresses in his book, Exegetical Fallacies. I’d give you the page number if I hadn’t lent my copy to my dad. To reverse the meaning is to read into the text something that it just does not say. Using that logic you would conclude that this statement: “if someone asks for a cookie, give it to him” also means “if he doesn’t ask for a cookie, don’t give it to him.” Obviously the one does not necessarily decide the other. Our Lord is just saying that if we confront someone with their wrong against us, and he repents, that we should forgive him. No where does He say, “if he does not repent then you should not forgive him.”

That doesn’t mean that his lack of repentance will not have further consequences either. He may end up under church discipline (Matthew 18). But to conclude that it is okay to withhold forgiveness based on this text is seriously suspect, IMO.

The same exegetical fallacy is employed in reading The Lord’s Prayer “forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us” to be I am repenting of my trespasses and therefore I will forgive those who trespass against me and repent to me as I have to You.” The one reading does not necessarily work the other way.

BTW: if you haven’t read Carson’s book, it is well worth your time…. I read it twice. It was embarrassing to think through the many times I’ve used faulty logic, read my own opinions into the text, or twisted it to mean something it doesn’t. Hopefully, I do less of that in the future. 

Matt, I see it this way as well.
Reconciliation is a two way street. But forgiveness is one-way. Repentance is one way. This is why I said the underlying difference is whether or not repentance is required for forgiveness. But really, it should be, is genuine repentance required for forgiveness? Or what level of repentance is required for forgiveness?

I'll need some time to chew on this. I'm looking forward to reading your book. Although I don't know exactly the direction you're going, I have come to the conclusion that one of the most overlooked and underrated views was Jesus in the Wisdom Tradition of Israel (Luke 11:31). I have been doing a serious study of Proverbs and Jesus' NT teachings for over three years now. IMHO, many of Christ's teachings fall right into the pattern of OT wisdom literature.

Writing in his commentary on Proverbs, Derek Kidner says that the wisdom literature is for daily living concerning those things that slip through the wide mesh of the law and are missed by the broadsides of the prophets. To the Hebrew mind, I understand wisdom to be the skill for living life well, not intellectual knowledge. Too often, I think, we are preoccupied in the search for profound theological ideas that we neglect the practical aspects for daily living.