The pardon of any offence committed against us. This is a virtue which our Lord expressly inculcates, not as extending to our friends only, but to our enemies. "Ye have heard, " saith he, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy; but I say unto you, love your enemies, " &c. "This, " says an ingenious writer, "was a lesson so new, and utterly unknown till taught by his doctrines and enforced by his example, that the wisest moralists of the wisest nations and ages represented the desire of revenge as a mark of a noble mind; but how much more magnanimous, how much more beneficial to mankind, is forgiveness! It is more magnanimous, because every generous and exalted disposition of the human mind is requisite to the practice of it; and it is the most beneficial, because it puts an end to an eternal succession of injuries and retaliation." Let us, therefore, learn to cherish this noble disposition; let the bitterest enemy we have be softened by its effects; let us consider also how friendly it is to our own happiness, and how much it prevents the unhappiness of others. "The feuds and animosities, in families, and between neighbours, which disturb the intercourse of human life, and collectively compose half the misery of it, have their foundation in the want of a forgiving temper, and can never cease but by the exercise of this virtue on one side, or on both." Paley’s Mor. Phil. vol. 1: p. 271; Soame Jenyns’s Int. Evid. p. 67, 68; Clarke’s Sermons, ser. 2. vol. x; Tillotson’s Ser. vol. 8: p. 254.
“the pardon of any offense committed against us. We are not apt to entertain any permanent or incurable ill will against the author of injuries to others, and why should we be irreconcilable when injuries have been done to ourselves? To love our enemies, or rather not to hate our enemies, is a duty which no guilt can annul, no injury efface. We are not required to love our enemies as our friends; but, when any injury has been done us, we are to endeavor to regard it with so much resentment as any just and impartial person would feel on hearing it related, and no more. To revenge injuries is to retaliate evil for the sake of retaliation. We are, all weak, frail, and sinful creatures. None of us passes through one day without feeling that he requires forgiveness from his God, and too often also from his fellow- creatures. Mercy is all our hope, forgiveness our constant prayer. In such a state, should we not pity and assist each other? Does not mutual weakness call for mutual forbearances? Weak, frail, and sinful as we are, we all hope, through the merits of Christ, to attain the happiness of heaven; and can creatures who, after a few short years, expect to, be forever united in the presence of God, to be liberated from all unruly passions, and to live together forever in heavens, in peace, and joy, and everlasting love can such creatures hate each other on earth? can they add to the sorrows of this state of trial, and spread more thorns in the path of life by acts of malice and revenge? can they risk their own eternal happiness by denying to each other that forgiveness without which they must not dare to hope that they shall be themselves forgiven? We know, from the express declaration of our Savior, that if we forgive not men their trespasses, neither will our heavenly Father forgive us. Christ estimated virtues by their solid utility, and not by their fashion or popularity, and hence he prefers the duty of forgiveness to every other. He enjoins it more frequently, with more earnestness, and under a greater variety of forms and he adds this weighty and peculiar circumstance, that the forgiveness of others is the sole condition on which we are to expect or even ask from God forgiveness for ourselves. This preference is justified by the superior importance of the virtue itself. The feuds and animosities which exist in families and among neighbors, which disturb the intercourse of human life, and collectively compose half its misery, have their foundation in the want of a forgiving temper, and can never cease except by the exercise of this virtue. Let us endeavor to forgive, that we may not be afraid to ask forgiveness. Let us take care so to pray for forgiveness, that our prayers may not justify and increase our condemnation. Let us remember the amazing condescension of the Son of God, in ‘taking upon him the form of a servant,’ and thence learn humility. Let us represent to our minds the terms of our salvation, in order to excite us to repentance. Let us adore the infinite love of our Redeem, who laid down his life for his enemies,’ and let this be the pattern of our charity” (Fellowes, Body of Theology, 2:210-213; Paley, Moral and Polit. Philosophy, 1:269; Warner, System of Divinity and Morality, 2:356). — Robinson, Theological Dictionary, s.v.; American Presbyterian Review, October 1867, art. 2.
“Some confound things that are separate and different the act of forgiving with the act of loving with approbation. — Repentance and confession are indispensable, when one has intentionally injured us in any way, to restore him to our fellowship and approbation. But what is a necessary condition of this is not a necessary condition of forgiving. Blending these two things together, and thinking of them as if they were one and inseparable, has doubtless caused some to differ in opinion from others who clearly discern the proper distinctions. It is a mistaken idea that in the matter of forgiveness we are strictly to imitate God the Father, and not forgive those who trespass against us until they repent and ask our pardon. God is clothed with the responsibilities of moral government over his creatures, while we are not. If he had made it our duty to revenge our own wrongs, and administer just punishment to the doers of the wrong, then it would be right and wise to follow his example in that particular. But the case is far otherwise. The Lord not only relieves us of that responsibility, but has commanded us not to usurp his prerogatives: ‘Avenge not yourselves.’ No doubt there are certain cases in civil and family governments in. which the outward acts of forgiveness. should be held in abeyance until forgiveness is duly sought. The offender in himself has no right to forgiveness until he seeks it in the true spirit of repentance. In the outward expressions of this, parents should often wait for the outward signs of penitence in their children. The same. may be true sometimes in other relations as between brothers and sisters and other domestic and civil relations. Hence there is an objective and a subjective view to be taken of the duty of forgiveness — an act in the heart, and an appropriate outward and formal expression of it. The former should be performed at once, to prevent greater evil to ourselves, while the latter may wisely be delayed until the proper occasion for it arrives. One may say he forgives, when in reality he does not forgive from the heart; so we may forgive from the heart long before we proclaim it to the parties concerned” (Zion’s Heralds, January 2, 1867).
aphesis (G859) Forgiveness, Remission
paresis (G3929) Passing over (of Sins)
Aphesis is the primary word used to express forgiveness (or remission) in the New Testament. In the Septuagint, however, aphesis is not used in that way. Aphesis is derived from aphienai (G863), and the underlying imagery depicts the release of a prisoner (Isa_61:1) or the remission of a debt (Deu_15:3). The Year of Jubilee (Lev_25:31; Lev_25:40; Lev_27:24), the year when all debts were forgiven, may have suggested the higher application of the word, a usage frequently found in the New Testament. On a single occasion, however, the phrase paresis ton hamartematon (G265) occurs (Rom_3:25). The Authorized Version's marginal note about this variation of the apostle's phrase translates paresis as "remission," just as elsewhere "remission" is used to translate aphesis. Although many scholars have agreed with this translation, others have more correctly affirmed that Paul deliberately used paresis to express something that aphesis would not adequately express and that our translators should have reproduced Paul's change.
Cocceius and his school used Rom_3:25 as one of the main supports for their doctrine that there was no remission of sins in the fullest sense under the old covenant. Cocceius taught that there was no teleiosis (G5050,Heb_10:1-4), no entire abolition of sin even for the faithful themselves, only a present praetermission (paresis), a temporary dissimulation by God in consideration of the sacrifice that was one day to be. Until that sacrifice the "remembrance of sins" remained. A violent controversy raged among the theologians of Holland at the end of the sixteenth and the beginning of the following century about this matter. On the one hand, those who opposed the Cocceian scheme incorrectly denied that there was any distinction between aphesis and paresis. On the other hand, Cocceius and his followers were undoubtedly wrong in saying that for the faithful under the old covenant there was only a paresis, not an aphesis, of sins and in applying to them what was asserted by the apostle in respect to the world. But Cocceius and his followers were correct in maintaining that paresis is not perfectly synonymous with aphesis. And indeed, Beza had already drawn attention to the distinction between the two words.
Aphesis and paresis suggest different meanings. If aphesis means "remission," then paresis naturally means "praetermission" the "passing by [paresis] of sins." The praetermission (passing by) of sins for the present leaves the future open for God either to remit the sins entirely or for him adequately to punish them, as may seem good to him who has the power and right to do one or the other. Fritzsche spoke plainly on this point:
These two wordsaphesis and paresisagree in that whether the one or the other occurs to you, no reckoning of your sins is made; they differ in that when the former is given, you never pay the penalty for your deeds, but when the latter is granted, you suffer no punishment for your deeds as long as he who has the right of chastising your transgressions decides to leave them unpunished.
The classical usage ofparienai and paresis bears out this distinction. Thus Xenophon stated: "It is not right to pass over [parienai] unpunished sins." And Josephus related that although Herod desired to punish a certain offense, he passed it by. When the Son of Sirach (Sir_23:2) prayed that God would not "pass by" his sins, he did not use ou me pare as a synonym for ou me aphe but asked only that he might not be without a wholesome chastisement following close on his transgressions.
Although aphesis and paresis suggest different meanings, the following passage from Dionysius of Halicarnassus has been adduced to prove that paresis is synonymous with aphesis:"They did not find complete remission [holoschere paresin], but they delayed for as long as they were able." It is "complete" paresis that is synonymous with aphesis, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus undoubtedly added that epithet because paresis alone would not have properly expressed his meaning.
Thus there is a strong prima facie probability that Paul intended something different by the sole use of paresis hamartematon in his letters (Rom_3:25) as contrasted with the many places where he used aphesis. The Authorized Version translates Rom_3:25 in this way: "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God." I would translate Rom_3:25 this way: "Whom God hath set forth as a propitiation, through faith in his blood, for a manifestation of his righteousness because of the praetermission [dia (G1223) ten paresin, not dia tes pareseos], in the forbearance of God, of the sins done aforetime." I think this was Paul's exact meaning: "There needed to be a signal manifestation of the righteousness of God, on account of the long praetermission or passing over of sins, in his infinite forbearance, with no adequate expression of his wrath against them, during all those long years which preceded the coming of Christ; which manifestation of God's righteousness found place, when he set forth no other and no less than his own Son to be the propitiatory sacrifice for sin" (Heb_9:15; Heb_9:22). Prior to the incarnation, God's extreme indignation against sin and sinners had not been pronounced. During that time, God's connivance the holding of his peace was only partial, for as Paul declared, the wrath of God was revealed from heaven against all unrighteousness of men (Rom_1:18). And in Rom_1:24-32, Paul traced some ways in which God's wrath was displayed. This was the time when God "allowed all nations to walk in their own ways" (Act_14:16); they were "the times of ignorance" that "God overlooked" (Act_17:30), the times of the anoche [G463] tou Theou.
By its very nature, this position regarding sin could only be transient and provisional. Among humans the passing over (praetermission) of offenses is often identical with their remission, that is, paresis is synonymous with aphesis. This is because people forget, because they are not able to bring the distant past into judgment, and because we do not have the righteous energy to will such a judgment. But with an absolutely righteous God, the paresis can only be temporary, and there must be a final settlement. Forbearance is not acquittal; every sin must either be absolutely forgiven or adequately avenged. As the Russian proverb tells us, "God has no bad debts." And as long as these sins are passed by, the paresis itself might seem to call into question God's absolute righteousness. Because God held his peace, people wrongly concluded that God, like them, was morally indifferent to good and evil. But now "at the fitting time" God, by the sacrifice of his Son, has rendered such an interpretation impossible. Bengel wrote:
The object of passing by [pareseos] is sin, of forbearance [anoches] it is the sinner. As long as passing by and forbearance existed, God's righteousness was not apparent; for he did not seem to be angered vehemently at sin, but to be indifferent, unconcerned, and negligent with the sinner, Heb_8:9. But through Christ's blood and propitious death God's justice has been displayedwith punishment against sin itself, that he himself might be just, and with zeal in behalf of the sinner, that he himself might be justifying.
Thus the one who partakes of the aphesis has his sins forgiven, and unless he commits new acts of disobedience (Mat_18:32; Mat_18:34; 2Pe_1:9; 2Pe_2:20), his sins will not be imputed to him or mentioned against him any more. The paresis is different from the aphesis and is a subordinate benefit. The paresis is the present passing over of sin, the suspension of its punishment, the not shutting up of all the ways of mercy against the sinner, the giving to him of space and helps for repentance. If such repentance follows, then the paresis will lose itself in the aphesis; if not, then the punishment that was suspended but not averted will arrive in due time (Luk_13:9).
Forgiveness. The remission of a fault. In the gospel of Christ, free forgiveness of sins is set forth. Act 5:31; Act 13:38-39; 1Jn 1:6-9; 1Jn 2:12. And the full remission, which transgressors have at God’s hand for Christ’s sake, is made the ground and the pattern of that forgiving spirit which is to be manifested by Christ’s true followers. Mat 6:12; Mat 6:14-15; Mat 18:21-35; Mar 11:25-26 A. V., but verse 26 is omitted in the R. V.; Eph 4:32, and elsewhere. See Justification.
Passing from the subject of atonement to that of forgiveness, we meet with the word Salach (
Salach is to be found in the following amongst other passages:-- Exo 34:9, ’If now I have found grace in thy sight, O Lord, let my Lord go among us; for it is a stiff-necked people; and pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for thine inheritance.’ Lev 4:20, ’The priest shall make an atonement for them (i.e. for the congregation when they had sinned through ignorance), and it shall be forgiven them;’ see also verses 26, 31, 35, and chap.5:10, 16, 18. Num 14:19-20, ’Pardon, I beseech thee, the iniquity of this people according to the greatness of thy mercy, and as thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt until now. and the Lord said, I have pardoned according to thy word.’ Deu 29:20, With respect to the apostate and licentious man, it is said, ’The Lord will not spare him, but the anger of the Lord and his jealousy shall smoke against that man, and all the curses that are written in this book shall lie up on him, and the Lord shall blot out his name from under heaven.’ 1Ki 8:30; 1Ki 8:39, ’When thou hearest, forgive.’ 2Ki 5:18, ’The Lord pardon thy servant, (that) when my master goeth into the house of Rimm on to worship there, and he leaneth on my hand, and I bow myself in the house of Rimm on . the Lord pardon thy servant in this thing.’ 2Ki 24:3-4, ’Surely at the commandment of the Lord came (This punishment) up on Judah, to remove them out of his sight, for the sins of Manasseh, according to all that he did; and also for the innocent blood that he shed: which the Lord would not pardon.’ Neh 9:17, ’Thou art a God ready to pardon’ (lit. a God of pardons) Psa 25:11, ’ for thy name sake, O Lord, pardon mine iniquity; for it is great.’ Psa 86:5, ’Thou, Lord, art good, and ready to forgive.’ Psa 103:3, ’Who forgiveth all thine iniquities, and healeth all thy diseases.’ Psa 130:4, ’There is forgiveness (
It appears, on the whole, that the process represented by this word Salach is the Divine restoration of an offender into favour, whether through his own repentance or the intercession of another. Though not identical with atonement, the two are nearly related in fact, the covering of the sin and the forgiveness of the sinner can only be understood as two aspects of one truth; for both found their fulness in God’s provision of mercy through Christ. The Apostle brings atonement and pardon closely together when he says, in summing up the symbolic value of the Levitical system, ’Without shedding of blood (the preliminary to atonement) there is no forgiveness (
The words
There are three Hebrew words translated to forgive.
1. kaphar , ’to cover,’ Deu 21:8; Psa 78:38; Jer 18:23. It is also translated ’atonement.’
2. nasa , ’to bear,’ take away [guilt]: used by Joseph’s brethren when they asked him to forgive them, Gen 50:17; and used of God as "forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin." Exo 34:7; Num 14:18; and in describing the blessedness of the man "whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered." Psa 32:1.
3. salach , ’to pardon,’ used only of the forgiveness that God gives. It is employed for the forgiveness attached to the sacrifices: "it shall be forgiven him." Lev 4:20; Lev 4:26; Lev 4:31; Lev 4:35; Lev 5:10; Lev 5:13; Lev 5:16; Lev 5:18; etc. It occurs in the prayer of Solomon at the dedication of the temple. 1Ki 8:30; 1Ki 8:34; 1Ki 8:36; 1Ki 8:39; 1Ki 8:50. Also in Psa 103:3; Jer 31:34; Jer 36:3; Dan 9:19.
In the N.T. two words are used:
There are two aspects in which forgiveness is brought before us in scripture.
1. The mind and thought of God Himself towards the sinner whom He forgives. On the ground of the sacrifice of Christ, God not only ceases to hold those who have faith in Christ’s blood as guilty before Him, but His favour is towards them. "Their sins and iniquities will I remember no more." Heb 10:17. Thus all sense of imputation of guilt is gone from the mind of God. "God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you" (
2. The guilty one is released, forgiven. "That they may receive forgiveness of sins." Act 26:18. "As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us ." Psa 103:12. "Your sins are forgiven you for his name’s sake." 1Jn 2:12. Hence it is true of all Christians, that their sins are forgiven. Another thought is included in the forgiveness of sins, namely, that having redemption by Christ, which brings into a new state, the whole guilty past is forgiven, removed from us, so that there is no hindrance to the enjoyment of that into which redemption brings.
The general principle as to forgiveness is stated in 1Jn 1:9; "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins;" and to this is added, "and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." This involves honesty of heart, whether in a sinner first coming to God, or in a child who has grieved the heart of the Father by sinning. The two aspects above referred to are here also. The faithfulness and righteousness of God in forgiving, and the cleansing us from all unrighteousness. God is faithful to His own blessed character of grace revealed in His Son, and righteous through the propitiation which He has made.
3. If a Christian is ’put away’ from the assembly and is repentant, he is forgiven and restored. 2Co 2:7; 2Co 2:10. This of course is different from the act of God in forgiving sins, and may be called administrative forgiveness in the church; and if the act of discipline is led of the Spirit, it is ratified in heaven: cf. Joh 20:22-23. This is entirely different from any pretended absolution that may be pronounced over poor deluded unconverted persons.
4. There is also a governmental forgiveness in connection with the government of God here below in time, both on God’s part, and toward one another. Isa 40:1-2; Luk 17:3; Jas 5:15-16; 1Jn 5:16. We are called upon to forgive one another; and if we indulge in a harsh unforgiving spirit, we must not expect our Father to forgive us in His governmental dealings. Mat 6:14-15.
The act of granting pardon for or remission of (something)
Forgiveness Belonging To The LORD
Dan_9:9.
Forgiving Others
Luk_17:3-4; Eph_4:32; Col_3:12-13.
How Many Times You Should Forgive Someone
Mat_18:21-22; Luk_17:3-4.
The Forgiveness Of Sins Coming Through The Blood Of Jesus Christ
Act_5:30-31; Act_10:37-43; Eph_1:3-7; Col_1:12-14.
The LORD Forgiving
Exo_34:6-7; Num_14:18-19; Psa_78:32-38; Psa_86:5; Psa_99:8; Psa_103:1-3; Psa_130:3-4; Jer_31:33-34; Eph_4:32; Col_2:8-13; Col_3:12-13.
The Reward For Forgiving Others
Mat_6:14; Mar_11:25; Luk_6:37.
The Reward For Not Forgiving Others
Mat_6:15; Mat_18:23-35; Mar_11:26.
Those Whose Iniquities Are Forgiven
Psa_32:1-2; Rom_4:6-7.
Who Shall Be Forgiven
2Ch_7:12-14; Psa_32:5; Mat_12:31-32; Mar_3:28; Luk_7:40-48; Luk_12:10; Act_10:37-43; Jam_5:14-15; 1Jn_1:9.
Who Shall Not Be Forgiven
Mat_12:31-32; Mar_3:28-29; Luk_12:10; Heb_6:4-8; Heb_10:26-29; 1Jn_5:16-17.
Whose Sins Are Forgiven
1Jn_2:10-12.
Why Jesus Christ Asked GOD The Father To Forgive Man
Luk_23:34.
FORGIVENESS
Three words are used in the Gospels which are rendered in English by the word ‘forgive’:—
In the treatment of the subject in this article three things must be borne in mind. First, that the words employed by Christ and the ideas they represent are not entirely new as they come from His lips. Our Lord presupposes and then puts His own characteristic impress upon a doctrine of forgiveness with which His hearers were for the most part familiar, and which for us is embodied in the OT. Secondly, that no complete study of Christ’s teaching concerning forgiveness can be made, unless other words, such as ‘save,’ ‘justify,’ and ‘cleanse,’ are taken into account, and the whole subject of release from the guilt and bondage of sin, as promised by Him, is kept in view. And, thirdly, that to stop short with the recorded words of Christ Himself on the matter is—speakingly reverently—not to know His whole mind upon it. It was impossible for Him in the course of His earthly ministry to set forth the full significance of His work for men, before it was accomplished. Hence for a complete account of the significance of His death we turn to the teaching of the Apostles, enlightened as they were by the Holy Spirit whom He had promised. In due course were revealed those ‘many things’ concerning His cross and passion which His disciples could not ‘bear’ during His lifetime. Down even to the very close of His short ministry on earth the rudimentary spiritual intelligence of the Apostles was unequal to carrying the full burden of the gospel as they afterwards understood it. The way in which that gospel was to he emphatically one of forgiveness, that ‘through this man is proclaimed remission of sins, and by him every one that believeth is justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses,’ was only made clear afterwards. It being therefore carefully borne in mind that the OT prepared the way for Christ’s teaching on forgiveness, and that the Epistles developed and completed it, this article will deal only with that stage in the biblical doctrine of the subject which is represented by Christ and the Gospels. The consideration of it will be divided into four sections: (1) the Divine forgiveness of man, (2) Christ’s own power to forgive sins, (3) the duty of men to forgive one another, (4) the extent to which authority to forgive is vested in the Christian community.
1. God the Father as forgiving the sins of men.—The first reference chronologically to this subject in the Gospels is found in the Benedictus, or Psalm of Zacharias (Luk 1:77). The prophecy concerning John the Baptist announces that he is to give ‘knowledge of salvation unto his people, in the remission of their sins, according to the tender mercy of our God,’ etc. The whole tenor of the canticle goes to show that God’s ancient promises were about to be fulfilled in the coming of a Saviour through whom the great boon of remission of sins was to be secured in a fuller sense than had hitherto obtained. When the time came, John the Baptist is declared to have preached the baptism of repentance ‘unto remission of sins’ (Mar 1:4, Luk 3:3). In the same connexion may be taken the interpretation of the name Jesus in Mat 1:21 ‘he shall save his people from their sins,’ and the ‘Saviour, Christ the Lord,’ of Luk 2:11, though the word ‘forgiveness’ does not occur. It was indeed implicit throughout our Lord’s ministry, all His declarations concerning His coming ‘not to call the righteous, but sinners’ (Mat 9:13), ‘to seek and to save that which was lost’ (Luk 19:10), and His promise of ‘rest to the souls’ of men (Mat 11:29), showing that the object of His ministry was to reclaim from sin, by bringing men to that forgiveness and cleansing which God had promised through repentance and faith in Him.
The explicit references to forgiveness of sin are comparatively few, but they are clear and definite in character, and quite sufficient to establish doctrine on the subject. They are: (a) the petition in the Lord’s Prayer, ‘Forgive us our debts,’ Mat 6:12 (‘our sins,’ Luk 11:3), combined with Mat 6:14-15, Mar 11:25, which assert God’s willingness to forgive under certain conditions. With these join Luk 6:37, a parallel passage with a different turn of expression, ‘Release and ye shall be released,’ the reference clearly being to sin. (b) The parables of Luke 15, especially that of the Prodigal Son, and of the Pharisee and the Publiean in Luk 18:9-14. (c) Our Saviour’s prayer on the cross, ‘Father, forgive them,’ etc., Luk 23:34. (d) Statements concerning God’s willingness to forgive all sins, including those ‘against the Son of man,’ but excluding the unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost, Mat 12:32, Mar 3:29, Luk 12:10; add also Mar 4:12, in which Isaiah’s prophecy is represented as being fulfilled, ‘lest they should repent and be forgiven (healed).’
Putting these passages together, we are warranted in concluding that Christ taught the readiness of the Father always to hear the prayer of the truly penitent and in His mercy to pardon their sins, the chief questions being, What is the exact nature of forgiveness? Is it free to all mankind, or to those only who are in covenant relation with Him? Is any condition besides that of repentance laid down?
The meaning of the word ‘forgiveness,’ and the relation between God and man implied in it, must be gathered largely from the OT. Doubtless under the old covenant a progressive revelation is to be recognized, an advance in spirituality of teaching being discernible in its later stages. Doubtless also it is necessary to bear in mind the distinction between the ceremonial standpoint of the Law with its elaborate ritual and appointed sacrifices on the one hand, and the more purely spiritual view of the prophet and psalmist on the other. But, broadly speaking, Christ, like the more ‘Evangelical’ OT prophets, represents forgiveness as a pure act of grace on the part of God, Who on the repentance of the sinner receives him graciously and pardons his transgression in the sense of replacing the offender in his former relation of acceptance and favour. Forgiveness is not mere remission of penalty, the forbearing to inflict deserved punishment, though such release is for the most part included. Punishment may still be exacted, but it has lost its penal character and becomes Divine chastisement inflicted for the improvement of the offender, or for the sake of others. Neither does forgiveness imply any false or arbitrary dealing with the past, any condoning of sin—which is essentially immoral—or ignoring of the transgression, as if it had not been committed—which would imply a weak and false attempt to secure the impossible. Nor, again, can any kind of remission of sins be predicated of God which implies unrighteousness in any form, the solemn sanctions of the eternal law of righteousness being secured by the conditions upon which forgiveness is granted.
But the essence of forgiveness lies in the establishment, or restoration, of a personal relation between sinful man and a grieved and righteously angry God. Omnipotence itself cannot erase the event from the history of the past, and holiness will not permit any concealment or pretence as to the heinousness of the offence committed. But the sin may be ‘covered,’ the guilt cancelled, in the sense that on certain conditions it shall be as if it had never been, so far as the relation between God and the sinner is concerned. Hence sin when forgiven is said to be ‘cast into the depth of the sea’ (Mic 7:19), ‘cast behind thy back’ (Isa 38:17), removed ‘as far as the east is from the west’ (Psa 103:12), ‘remembered no more’ (Jer 31:34) against the sinner.
Ritschl says: ‘God, in forgiving or pardoning sins, exercises His will in the direction of not permitting the contradiction—expressed in guilt—in which sinners stand to Him to hinder that fellowship of men with Him which He intends on higher grounds.’ It does not, he adds, ‘free them altogether from the consciousness of guilt, but from that mistrust which, as an affection of the consciousness of guilt, naturally separates the injured man from the offender.’ And again, it is ‘a reconciliation of such a nature that while memory, indeed, preserves the pain felt at the sin which has been committed, yet at the same time the place of mistrust towards God is taken by the positive assent of the will to God and His saving purpose.’
Forgiveness can never be adequately understood by means of any figure of speech, commercial or other. It represents a relation of persons, and its essence lies in the restoration of impaired confidence, affection, and favourable regard. It has to do not only with the past, but the present and the future, and it is exercised by God towards men just in proportion as they are capable of receiving it.
Repentance is the one condition clearly laid down and repeatedly insisted on in the Gospels. It is necessary as between man and man, much more between man and God. When John the Baptist comes to prepare the way of the Saviour, nothing can be done without that thoroughgoing repentance which implies reformation so far as man can effect it. Repentance is indeed a necessary ingredient of forgiveness if the two terms are rightly understood. Sorrow for sin and complete renunciation of it are not arbitrary conditions which the Sovereign chooses to exact before bestowing a boon; they belong to the very essence of the personal relation between Father and son which has been impaired or broken by error and disobedience, and which is to be restored in forgiveness. For an impenitent sinner not to be punished is conceivable, but for such a one to be forgiven is a contradiction in terms. The necessity for a forgiving spirit in one who hopes himself to be forgiven is dealt with below.
God is then ‘good and ready to forgive’ (Psa 86:5), a God ‘keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin’ (Exo 34:7). It would, however, be misleading to generalize and say that this attribute of mercy obviates all necessity for an atonement, or vindication of the law of righteousness, and that throughout the whole history of the world nothing more is needed to obtain Divine forgiveness of sin than confession and repentance on the part of man. The promises of the OT were given to those who stood in a covenant relation with God, in which His righteousness was effectually safeguarded. Christ’s ministry was exercised amongst Jews in the first instance, and the presuppositions of OT Scripture must be taken into account.
The same may be said of the two gracious parables of our Lord which chiefly deal with this subject. It is impossible to found accurate doctrine on a parable only, and it is always a mistake to suppose that one parable can cover the whole range of doctrine. The three recorded in Luke 15 were uttered to show the nature of Christ’s mission and His desire to seek and save the worst sinners, as well as the willingness of God to receive such, and the joy of heaven and earth when the penitent returns and is pardoned. The moral basis on which this becomes possible in the Divine government is another matter. The cosmic conditions of forgiveness are described in their proper place in Scripture. But in the parable of the Prodigal Son the lesson is impressed that the utmost failure in filial duty will be readily forgiven, if the wanderer will but repent and return. In the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican the essential teaching is the same—the danger lest those who comply with rules of ordinary morality should so plume themselves on their obedience as to lose the sense of their own deep need and ill-desert, and the fact that grave offenders against the fundamental laws of righteousness, like the publican and the harlot, may find their way into the kingdom of grace before the self-righteous Pharisee. But it would be utterly misleading, even to the subversion of the very foundations of ethics, if the inference were drawn that it matters nothing how deeply a man sins, provided that when his evil course is over he regrets his errors and asks for pardon, and that there is no reason in the moral government of the Universe why such a man should not be at once forgiven without infraction of the eternal law of righteousness.
This general conclusion is borne out by Christ’s strong language concerning sin, and especially that sin which cannot be forgiven (see Mat 12:32, Mar 3:29, Luk 12:10). In spite of the long controversy which has taken place as to the mysterious sin against the Holy Ghost and the misunderstandings concerning it which have caused unspeakable spiritual anguish to thousands, there seems little question that the only sin thus pronounced unpardonable is that of wilful and persistent sinning against light till light itself is turned into darkness,—the perverting of truth at its very source, where the Holy Spirit Himself instructs the conscience, and thus poisoning the wells of the soul. Therefore, not in virtue of an arbitrary fiat of the Almighty, but by the necessity of the case, such sin cannot be forgiven. ‘A lamp’s death when, replete with oil, it chokes; a stomach’s when, surcharged with food, it starves.’ With this explanation harmonizes the Saviour’s prayer in Luk 23:34 ‘Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.’ The sin of Christ’s murderers, heinous indeed beyond expression, was a sin against the Son of man, and—at least in the case of most of those implicated and so far as the full gravity of the offence was concerned—it was not such a deliberate and complete perversion of conscience as to amount to a sin against the Holy Spirit. The reason why the unforgiving cannot be forgiven is to be similarly understood. Hence the general doctrine is laid down in the Gospels in unmistakable terms, that God the Father is ready to receive and pardon all sinners except those who shut themselves out from its possibility by wilfully cherishing a spirit known to be evil, and deliberately hardening their own hearts against the grace which was ready to receive and renew them. See Unpardonable Sin.
2. It is clear that Christ’s teaching concerning forgiveness was not exhausted by the proclamation of the Father’s willingness to receive the penitent. He Himself claimed the power to forgive, which was recognized by all to be a Divine prerogative. In Matthew 9, Mark 2, and Luke 5 is recorded the narrative of the healing of the paralytic, which had evidently impressed itself strongly upon tradition, since it is given by all three Synoptists at greater length than usual and almost in the same words. It was one of the grounds of offence which ultimately caused the death of Jesus, that, whilst lowly in demeanour, He put forth claims for Himself so lofty that to a reverent Jew He appeared often to blaspheme. Jesus does not deny the fundamental assumption that none can forgive sins but God only. To a true believer in one God this is an axiom; there is but one Governor and there can be but one Fount of pardon. Jesus did not thereupon disclaim the possession of a Divine prerogative. He put His own claims to an easily applied test, Whether is it easier to tell a sufferer that his sins are forgiven, or to heal him of an incurable malady? In other words, any prophet may speak words of comfort or absolution, but one who shows the power of healing in order to establish his claim to pronounce forgiveness is no ordinary messenger, but proves Himself to be the Son of God with power. The whole incident evidently made a deep impression, for we are told that the people wondered, praised God, and acknowledged that unprecedented and superhuman power had been entrusted to a son of man.
The close connexion between the work that Christ did for the bodies of men and the power that He claimed over their souls in the forgiveness of sin, is suggested in other narratives, though somewhat less clearly. The inference has been drawn from Joh 5:14 and the early tradition recorded in Joh 8:11, that Jesus habitually pronounced remission of sin and gave power to amend the life in future, but the brief records in these cases hardly warrant such a conclusion.
The narrative of the woman who was a sinner, recorded in Luk 7:36-50, is full of instruction on the subject of forgiveness. The mission of Christ to save the outcast and the abandoned is here delicately and beautifully shown. The only doubtful point of interpretation relates to the ground of forgiveness as described in Luk 7:47. Many commentators, including the chief Roman Catholic authorities, make the forgiveness extended to the woman to depend upon the love she showed, and at first reading this might seem warranted by the phrase ‘for she loved much.’ But on examination this is seen to be impossible. For (1) the whole scope of the parable of the two debtors shows that forgiveness precedes love; (2) the latter part of Luk 7:47 enforces the same lesson; and so (3) does the absolution pronounced in Luk 7:48. The only ambiguity lies in the pregnant use of
The doctrine of the forgiveness of sins on the basis of atonement through the death of Christ is not, properly speaking, revealed by Christ Himself. The Fourth Gospel contains passages like Joh 1:29 and a reference in Joh 19:36 to the Paschal lamb (?), but neither of these comes from the lips of the Master. The nearest approach to such teaching is found in the institution of the Lord’s Supper and the reference to His blood as shed for the remission of sins in Mat 26:28, also perhaps in the directions given to the Apostles in Luk 24:47. By the time of St. Paul’s earliest Epistles the doctrine of the atoning death of Christ as the ground of the forgiveness of sins was fairly developed, and the question is, How far had progress been made in this direction before the death of Christ took place? The answer appears to be that—as with the doctrines of the Incarnation and a Future Life in the OT—foreshadowings only had been given, hints and indications of a revelation which could not be clearly and definitely made until Christ’s work was complete and the full gift of the Spirit bestowed. A reference is found in Mat 20:28 to the giving up of life by the Son of man ‘as a ransom for many,’ but the Apostles could not in Christ’s lifetime understand at all the need for His death and the full meaning of the shedding of His blood upon the cross; and its connexion with the forgiveness of sins dawned upon them only gradually under the illumination of the promised Spirit.
3. One of the most noteworthy features in Christ’s ethical teaching was His inculcation of the duty of almost unlimited forgiveness of man by man. The standard thus set up was practically new. In Pagan ethics to revenge an injury and punish an enemy to the utmost was manly, to forgive was mean-spirited. Some affronts might be passed over by the magnanimous man, simply because it was beneath his dignity, or disturbing to his equanimity, to notice them. But the idea of not only abstaining from vengeance, but actually restoring an offender to a relation of kindly regard, on the ground of human brotherhood and for the sake of helping an erring one to regain his forfeited position, was quite alien to the spirit of ancient morals.
Christ taught not only the duty of forgiveness on repentance, but that it was to be unlimited both in quality and in quantity. No offence was so serious, no repetition of offences so excessive, that forgiveness might be withheld, provided only that penitence were shown. The former of these points is not enlarged on by Christ, but it is involved in the proverbial completeness of the phrase ‘unto seventy times seven’ (Mat 18:22). Such forgiveness of injuries was based upon two fundamental principles of Christian ethics: (a) the duty of repressing all personal resentment, closely connected with the virtues of meekness and humility; and (b) that love to all men, including enemies, which—paradoxical as it might appear—Christ enjoined as fundamentally incumbent on all His disciples (Mat 5:44). The ‘love’ and forgiveness thus inculcated do not depend upon personal merits, for they are to be exercised even towards the unthankful and the evil. But the one necessary condition—repentance—is insisted on, else the moral character of forgiveness is lost. For, as already explained, forgiveness is a relation between persons, and if it be included as a duty in a moral code, it must imply an ethical relation, such as is altogether lacking if evil is condoned, or its seriousness slighted. Hence the offender must, so far as in him lies, put away the evil thing, if it is to be no longer a barrier between him and one whose course is determined by the law of righteousness. The truly moral nature of Christian forgiveness is brought out in Luk 17:3, where it is closely joined with the duty of reproving sin—‘If thy brother sin, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.’ With this may be compared Lev 19:17, where the reproof of an evil-doer is spoken of as a mark of love. Just as in the Law the righteous man is bidden to rebuke his neighbour and not ‘bear sin because of him,’ so under the gospel he is bidden to forgive the penitent wrong-doer, that he may help him to a better life.
The close connexion between God’s forgiveness of man and man’s forgiveness of injuries against himself is brought out in Mat 6:12; Mat 6:15, Luk 11:4; see also Luk 6:37 and Mar 11:25-26. In the last passage, as well as in Mat 5:23-24, the duty of being ‘in love and charity with our neighbours,’ and ‘in perfect charity with all men,’ is laid down as a condition of acceptable prayer to God. The reason is akin to that described above. There are some states of mind in which a worshipper is not fit to pray, in which he asks for blessings that he is not capable of receiving. The principle is not to be understood as a kind of Divine lex talionis, as in the parable of the Unmerciful Debtor (Mat 18:35)—that a man does not deserve mercy himself, if he will not show it to others, though this is true and appeals to a natural sense of justice. Rather is it to be understood that the unforgiving man shows essential impenitence, or at best an uneducated conscience in respect of his relations with his fellows. A man who cherishes hardness of heart towards those who have injured him so offends against the law of love that he cannot be received by the God of love, and cannot enjoy the restored relationship which he asks for in the Divine forgiveness, the whole significance of which is due to the supremacy of love. Or, as Beyschlag expresses it, ‘he who would belong to the kingdom of love as a recipient must belong to it as an agent.’ The merciful alone can obtain mercy, or rightly use it when it is granted to them.
4. Similar principles to those which regulate the relation of individuals are to be applied where Christian communities are concerned. The two are closely connected, as is shown by the passage Mat 18:15-18. Christ deals first with the offending individual; if it can be avoided, recourse must not be had to the authority of the Christian society. It may be that personal remonstrance will suffice to set right the offender, or at least the moral influence of the brotherhood exercised in private by the presence of two or three witnesses. If the whole community is compelled to act, the utmost penalty inflicted is expulsion from the brotherhood, the only rights then remaining to the excommunicated person being the inalienable ones of a fellow-man.
The question of forgiveness or condemnation as exercised by the community arises from the phraseology concerning binding and loosing contained in Mat 18:18, with which should be compared the words addressed to St. Peter in Mat 16:18, and those addressed to a company which seems certainly to have included more than the Apostles, in Joh 20:23. The power granted to the Christian community in the words, ‘Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained,’ is not to be confused with Divine forgiveness of sins on the one hand, or with individual forgiveness on the other. Whilst more significant than the latter, it stops far short of the former. Individual Christians are to do their best privately to stop the progress of ill-feeling and enmity, but ‘offences’ will still arise. A power of checking them is therefore lodged with the community for the maintenance of purity and the avoidance of scandal. This is described as the power of ‘binding and loosing.’ Acting in the name of Christ, and presumably in the spirit of Christ, His Church will, He says, in a sense exercise His authority, and their action, whether of permission or prohibition, of condemnation or acquittal, will be ratified in heaven. This power, while great and important, is clearly not comparable to the Divine forgiveness of the individual sinner. This involves a full knowledge of circumstances and of the disposition of the inmost heart which no man can possess in relation to his fellow-man. No authority is given by Christ to a community—still less to a ‘priest,’ of whom it is needless to say that the Gospels know absolutely nothing—to exercise or to pronounce ‘forgiveness’ in the case of any individual. But just as an offender belonging to a Christian community needs to be rebuked by the Church in order that the Divine condemnation of wrongdoing may be echoed on earth, and earthly penalties may be inflicted which may arrest further evil and so prevent the terrible danger of worse punishment to come; so the penitent needs assurance from an earthly authority to help him in his upward course of reformation, though the real and ultimate transaction of forgiveness must rest between himself and God alone. The high authority thus conferred upon the Christian society and the responsible character attached to its judgments depend entirely upon its possession of that spiritual discernment which the Holy Spirit alone can bestow, and its acting always in the name of Christ and under the direction and control of the Spirit of Christ.
Literature.—From amongst the numberless books bearing directly or indirectly on the subject may be mentioned: Beyschlag, NT Theology, bk. i. ch. iv. § 11, and ch. vii. §§ 3 and 4; Stevens, NT Theology, pt. i. ch. viii.; Moberly, Atonement and Personality, chs. 2 and 3; Seeley, Ecce Homo, chs. 22 and 23; Knight, Christian Ethic, ch. 11; and especially Ritschl, Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation, 1874, vol. iii. [English translation under the above title, 1900]; see also Bethune-Baker, art. ‘Forgiveness’ in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible .
W. T. Davison
(
: Deut. xxi. 8; Jer. xviii. 23; Ps. lxxviii. 38; 
: I Kings viii. 30 et seq.; Lev. iv. 20 et seq.; Dan. ix. 9; 
: Gen. l. 17; Ex. x. 17; I Sam. xv. 25, xxv. 28):
By: Executive Committee of the Editorial Board., Adolf Guttmacher
Forgiveness is one of the attributes ascribed to Yhwh: "to the Lord our God belong mercies and forgiveness" (Dan. ix. 9; comp. Ex. xxxiv. 6-7; Num. xiv. 18 et seq.; Ps. lxxxvi. 5; Jonah iv. 2). The condition essential to God's forgiveness of iniquity is, as the contexts of the passages indicated show, repentance on the part of the sinner for the offense committed. A further essential condition is the intention to avoid repetition of the offense. The fulfilment of these conditions restores the sinner to his right relation toward Yhwh. "Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon" (Isa. lv. 7; comp. Amos v. 14; Jer. iii. 14 et seq.; Ezek. xviii. 21 et seq., xxxiii. 11-21; Hosea xiv. 1-4); "For thou, Lord, art good, and ready to forgive; and plenteous in mercy unto all them that call upon thee" (Ps. lxxxvi. 5; comp. lxxviii. 38).
Under the sacrificial system as found in Leviticus repentance and atonement are represented by the animal sacrifice which a priest offers for the sinner But the forgiveness to be attained through the sacrifice is only for sins committed unintentionally, and for ignorance that has caused ritual defilement. No sacrifice could atone for wilful offenses. "But he that sins knowingly . . . blasphemes Yhwh; he shall be cut off from among his people" (Num. xv. 30, Hebr.). The main passage referring to sin-offerings is found in Lev. iv.-v. 13 (comp. Num. xv. 22 et seq.). In the Prophets and Psalms repentance is wholly based upon change of heart. Forgiveness is a free act of God's mercy and grace (Micah vii. 18, 19; Ps. ciii. 3; comp. Jer. xxxi. 34; Ezek. xxxvi. 25 et seq.; Ecclus. [Sirach] xvii. 20 et seq., xviii. 11).
The Bible, which regards all men as created in the image of God (Gen. i. 27) and makes holiness the corner-stone of its ethical teachings, warns against all manner of hatred and vengeance (Lev. xix. 2, 17, 18). This idea is also the basis of the Talmudic dictum, "For certain sins repentance gives a respite, and the Day of Atonement atones; but he who sins against his neighbor must first be reconciled to him" (Yoma 85b).
Not only should one not harbor hatred and vengeance in his heart, but it is his duty to help his enemy, which certainly presupposes forgiveness of him (Ex. xxiii. 4, 5).
In the Wisdom literature and the Talmud especially are found many beautiful teachings concerning the treatment of one's enemies (see Prov. xxv. 21; xxiv. 17, 29; Deut. xxxii. 35; Prov. xx. 22; Ecclus. [Sirach] xxviii. 1).
"Be of the persecuted and not of the persecutors" (B. Ḳ. 93b). "Who is strong? He who turns an enemy into a friend" (Ab. R. N. xxiii.). "If a friend be in need of your aid to unload a burden, and an enemy to help him load, assist first the enemy, that the desire for hatred may be stifled in you" (B. M. 32).
There are many passages in Biblical and post-Biblical literature that promise special favor from God to him who is merciful and forgiving to his fellow men (see II Sam. xxii. 26; Ps. xviii. 25; see also Compassion). "He who has pity for men to him God will be merciful" Er. xvii. 72; comp. Yoma 23). "He who has mercy for his fellow men belongs to the descendants of Abraham" (Beẓah 32; comp. Ecclus. [Sirach] xxviii. 2).
FORGIVENESS.—Like many other words employed to convey ideas connected with the relations of God and man, this covers a variety of thoughts. In both OT and NT we have evidences of a more elastic vocabulary than the EV
According to the Levitical code, when wrong was done between man and man, the first requlsite in order to Divine pardon was restitution, which had to be followed up by a service of atonement (Lev 6:2-7). Even in the case of sins of ignorance, repentance and its outward expression in sacrifice had to precede forgiveness (Lev 4:13 ff., Num 15:23 ff. etc.). Here the educative influence of the Law must have been powerful, inculcating as it did at once the transcendent holiness of God and the need of a similar holiness on the part of His people (Lev 11:44). Thus the Pauline saying, ‘The law hath been our tutor to bring us to Christ’ (Gal 3:24), is profoundly true, and the great priestly services of the Temple, with the solemn and ornate ritual, must have given glimpses of the approach by which men could feel their way and obtain the help indispensable for the needs adumbrated by the demands of the Mosaic institutions. The burden of the prophetic exhortations, ‘Turn ye, turn ye, why will ye die?’ (Eze 33:11; cf. Isa 44:22, Jer 35:15; Jer 18:11, Hos 14:1, Joe 2:13 etc.), would be meaningless if the power to obey were withheld, or the way kept hidden. Indeed, these preachers of moral righteousness did not hesitate to emphasize the converse side of this truth in dwelling on the ‘repentance’ of God and His returning to His afflicted but repentant people (Jon 3:9, Mal 3:7 etc.). The resultant effect of this mutual approach was the restoration to Divine favour, of those who had been alienated, by the free act of forgiveness on the part of God (Psa 85:4, Isa 55:7; Isa 59:20, Jer 13:17; Jer 13:24 etc.).
2. We are thus not surprised to learn that belief in the forgiveness of sins was a cardinal article of the Jewish faith in the time of Jesus (Mar 2:7 = Luk 5:21, cf. Isa 43:25). Nor was the teaching of Jesus in any instance out of line with the national belief, for, according to His words, the source of all pardon was His Father (Mar 11:25 f., Mat 6:14 f.; cf. His appeal on the cross, ‘Father, forgive them,’ Luk 23:34). It is true that ‘the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins’ (Mar 2:10 = Mat 9:6 = Luk 5:24), but the form of the expression shows that Jesus was laying claim to a delegated authority (cf. Luk 7:43, where, as in the case of the palsied man, the words are declaratory rather than absolute; see Plummer, ICC
3. Again, following along the line we have traced in the OT, only more definitely and specifically emphasized, the NT writers affirm the necessity for a moral likeness between God and man (cf. Mat 5:48). It is in this region, perhaps, that the most striking development is to be seen. Without exhibiting, in their relations to each other, the Divine spirit of forgiveness, men need never hope to experience God’s pardon for themselves. This, we are inclined to think, is the most striking feature in the ethical creations of Jesus’ teaching. By almost every method of instruction, from incidental postulate (Mat 6:12=Luk 11:4, Mar 11:25) to deliberate statement (Mat 18:21 ff; Mat 6:15, Mar 11:25, Luk 17:4) and elaborate parable (Mat 18:23-35), He sought to attune the minds of His hearers to this high and difficult note of the Christian spirit (cf. Col 3:13, 1Jn 4:11). Once more, Jesus definitely asserts the limitation to which the pardon and mercy even of God are subjected. Whatever may be the precise meaning attaching to the words ‘an eternal sin’ (Mar 3:29), it is plain that some definite border-line is referred to as the line of demarcation between those who may hope for this evidence of God’s love and those who are outside its scope (Mat 12:32). See art. Sin, iii. 1.
4. We have lastly to consider the words, recorded only by St. John, of the risen Jesus to His assembled disciples (Joh 20:23). It is remarkable that this is the only place in the Fourth Gospel where the word tr.
5. On more than one occasion St. Paul speaks of the forgiveness of sins as constituting the redemption of the human race effected by the death of Christ (‘through his blood’ Eph 1:7, cf. Col 1:14); and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews emphasizes this aspect of the atoning work of Jesus by showing its harmony with all with which previous revelation had made us familiar, for ‘apart from shedding of blood there is no remission’ (Heb 9:22). The same writer, moreover, asserts that once this object has been accomplished, nothing further remains to be done, as ‘there is no more offering for sin’ (Heb 10:18) than that which the ‘blood of Jesus’ (Heb 10:19) has accomplished. The triumphant cry of the Crucified, ‘It is finished’ (Joh 19:30), is for this writer the guarantee not only that ‘the Death of Christ is the objective ground on which the sins of men are remitted’ (Dale, The Atonement, p. 430 f.); it is also the assurance that forgiveness of sin is the goal of the life and death of Him whose first words from the cross breathed a prayer for the forgiveness of His tormentors.
J. R. Willis.
1. Etymology
2. Pagan and Jewish Ideas
3. The Teaching of Christ
4. Conditions of Forgiveness
5. The Offended Party
6. Divine and Human Forgiveness
7. Forgiveness and Justification
8. Old Testament Teaching
9. Limitations of Forgiveness
10. Christ’s Power to Forgive Sins
11. The Need of An Atonement
12. The New Testament Doctrine of Atonement
1. Etymology
Of the seven words, three Hebrew and four Greek, which are used to express the idea of forgiveness, the last two occur in this sense only once each.
2. Pagan and Jewish Ideas
Forgiveness was not a pagan virtue. The large-souled man might disregard offenses in cases where he considered them beneath his notice, but to forgive was weak-spirited (F. W. Robertson on 1Co 4:12). Even in the Old Testament, man’s forgiveness of his fellow-man is infrequently mentioned. In every case the one asking forgiveness is in a position of subserviency, and is petitioning for that to which he has no just right (Gen 50:17; Exo 10:17; 1Sa 15:25; 1Sa 25:28). The Imprecatory Psalms attest the fact that forgiveness of enemies was not esteemed as a virtue by Israel. They could appeal to the law which enjoined upon them to seek neither the peace nor the prosperity of their avowed enemies (Deu 23:6; compare Ezr 9:12). Jesus gave the popular summing-up of the law and not its exact words when he said, “Ye have heard that it was said ... hate thine enemy” (Mat 5:43), and this certainly does represent their attitude and their understanding of the teaching of the Scriptures.
3. The Teaching of Christ
Christ taught that forgiveness is a duty. No limit can be set to the extent of forgiveness (Luk 17:4) and it must be granted without reserve. Jesus will not admit that there is any wrong so gross nor so often repeated that it is beyond forgiveness. To Him an unforgiving spirit is one of the most heinous of sins (Bruce, Parabolic Teaching, 376ff). This is the offense which God will not forgive (Mat 18:34, Mat 18:35). It is the very essence of the unpardonable sin (Mar 3:22-30). It was the one blemish of the elder son which marred an otherwise irreproachable life (Luk 15:28-30). This natural, pagan spirit of implacability Jesus sought to displace by a generous, forgiving spirit. It is so far the essence of His teaching that in popular language “a Christian spirit” is not inappropriately understood to be synonymous with a forgiving disposition. His answer to Peter that one should forgive not merely seven times in a day, but seventy times seven (Mat 18:21, Mat 18:22), not only shows that He thought of no limit to one’s forgiveness, but that the principle could not be reduced to a definite formula.
4. Conditions of Forgiveness
Jesus recognized that there are conditions to be fulfilled before forgiveness can be granted. Forgiveness is part of a mutual relationship; the other part is the repentance of the offender. God does not forgive without repentance, nor is it required of man. The effect of forgiveness is to restore to its former state the relationship which was broken by sin. Such a restoration requires the coöperation of both parties. There must be both a granting and an acceptance of the forgiveness. Sincere, deep-felt sorrow for the wrong which works repentance (2Co 7:10) is the condition of mind which insures the acceptance of the forgiveness. Hence, Jesus commands forgiveness when the offender turns again, saying, “I repent” (Luk 17:3, Luk 17:1). It was this state of mind which led the father joyfully to welcome the Prodigal before he even gave utterance to his newly formed purpose (Luk 15:21).
5. The Offended Party
It is not to be supposed, however, that failure to repent upon the part of the offender releases the offended from all obligation to extend forgiveness. Without the repentance of the one who has wronged him he can have a forgiving state of mind. This Jesus requires, as is implied by, “if ye forgive not every one his brother from your hearts” (Mat 18:35). It is also implied by the past tense in the Lord’s Prayer: “as we also have forgiven our debtors” (Mat 6:12). It is this forgiving spirit which conditions God’s forgiveness of our sins (Mar 11:25; Mat 6:14, Mat 6:15). In such a case the unforgiving spirit is essentially unrepentance (Mat 18:23-35). “Of all acts, is not, for a man, repentance the most Divine?”
The offended is to go even farther and is to seek to bring the wrongdoer to repentance. This is the purpose of the rebuking commanded in Luk 17:3. More explicitly Jesus says, “If thy brother sin against thee, go, show him his fault between thee and him alone” (Mat 18:15-17). He is to carry his pursuit to the point of making every reasonable effort to win the wrongdoer, and only when he has exhausted every effort may he abandon it. The object is the gaining of his brother. Only when this is evidently unattainable is all effort to cease.
The power of binding and loosing, which means forbidding and allowing, was granted to Peter (Mat 16:19) and to the Christian community (Mat 18:18; Joh 20:23). It clearly implies the possession of the power to forgive sins. In the case of Peter’s power it was exercised when he used the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Mat 16:19). This consisted in the proclamation of the gospel and especially of the conditions upon which men might enter into relationship with God (Act 2:38; Act 10:34). It was not limited to Peter only, but was shared by the other apostles (Mat 16:19; Mat 18:18). Christ left no fixed rules the observance or non-observance of which would determine whether one is or is not in the kingdom of God. He gave to His disciples principles, and in the application of these principles to the problems of life there had to be the exercise of discriminating judgment. The exercise of this judgment was left to the Christian community (2Co 2:10). It is limited by the principles which are the basis of the kingdom, but within these principles the voice of the community is supreme. The forgiveness here implied is not the pronouncing of absolution for the sins of individuals, but the determination of courses of conduct and worship which will be acceptable. In doing this its decisions will be ratified in heaven (Westcott on Joh 20:23).
That there is a close analogy between human and Divine forgiveness is clearly implied (Mat 5:23, Mat 5:14; Mat 6:12; Mar 11:25; Luk 6:37; Col 1:14; Col 3:13). God”s forgiveness is conditional upon man’s forgiveness of the wrongs done him, not because God forgives grudgingly but because forgiveness alone indicates that disposition of mind which will humbly accept the Divine pardon.
6. Divine and Human Forgiveness
Repentance is a necessary ingredient of the fully developed forgiveness. There is no essential difference between the human and the Divine pardon, though the latter is necessarily more complete. It results in the complete removal of all estrangement and alienation between God and man. It restores completely the relationship which existed prior to the sin. The total removal of the sin as a result of the Divine forgiveness is variously expressed in the Scriptures: “Thou hast cast all my sins behind thy back” (Isa 38:17); “Thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea” (Mic 7:19); “I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more” (Jer 31:34); “I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions” (Isa 43:25); “As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us” (Psa 103:12). Ideally this same result is attained in human forgiveness, but actually the memory of the sin remains with both parties as a barrier between them, and even when there is a complete restoration of amity the former state of alienation cannot entirely be removed from memory. When God forgives, however, He restores man to the condition of former favor. Release from punishment is involved, though Divine forgiveness is more than this. In most cases the consequences, which in some instances are spoken of as punishment, are not removed, but they lose all penal character and become disciplinary. Nor does the forgiveness remove from human mind the consciousness of sin and the guilt which that involved, but it does remove the mistrust which was the ground of the alienation. Mistrust is changed into trust, and this produces peace of mind (Psa 32:5-7; Rom 5:1); consciousness of the Divine love and mercy (Psa 103:2); removes fear of punishment (2Sa 12:13); and awakens love to God.
7. Forgiveness and Justification
Paul rarely uses the term “forgiveness,” but in its place prefers justification. They are to his understanding practically synonymous (Stevens, Theology of the New Testament, 418). He preferred the latter, however, because it was better fitted to express the idea of secure, present and permanent acceptance in the sight of God. It connoted both a complete and a permanent state of grace. In popular thought forgiveness is not so comprehensive, but in the Biblical sense it means no less than this. It removes all of the guilt and cause of alienation from the past; it assures a state of grace for the present; and promises Divine mercy and aid for the future. Its fullness cannot adequately be conveyed by any one term or formula.
Divine, like human, forgiveness is always contingent upon the fulfillment of conditions. It must be preceded by repentance and a firmly fixed intention not to repeat the offense. In addition to this, one was required to conform to certain legal or formal acts before the assurance of pardon was his. These acts were expressive of the sinner’s state of mind. They consisted of certain acts of sacrifice in the pre-Christian times and of baptism during the ministry of John the Baptist (Mar 1:4; Luk 3:3) and under Christ (Act 2:38; Act 22:16). These acts are never regarded as in any sense a quid pro quo in return for which the benefit of forgiveness is granted. It is an act of pure grace on God’s part, and these acts are required as expressions of the man’s attitude toward God. The state of mind required in order to obtain the gift of forgiveness is that to which the Prodigal Son came (Luk 15:17-19), and that of the sinner who went to his house justified rather than the Pharisee (Luk 18:9-14), because he realized that forgiveness was to him an act of pure favor.
There was real and actual forgiveness of sins in the Old Testament times as well as since Christ. Certain passages have been construed to teach that the Law provided only for a passing over or rolling back of sins, and that there was not then an actual forgiveness.
8. Old Testament Teaching
The sacrifices prescribed by the Law were not adequate atonements, so that there was constant necessity of yearly remembrance of sin (Heb 10:3; compare Lev 16:21). The atonement of Christ is, however, of permanent adequacy, and became retroactive in the sense that it unified in Christ the Divine arrangement for saving mankind in all ages (Heb 11:40). “The passing over of the sins done aforetime” (Rom 3:25) does not imply a partial or apparent forgiveness, but means that they were forgiven, though seemingly without adequate recognition on the part of God of their heinous character. In view of God’s righteous character men might naturally have expected punishment, but instead the offenders were spared (compare Act 14:16; Act 17:30). No expression in the Old Testament suggests any inadequacy of the forgiveness extended to Israel, but on the other hand many passages may be quoted to show how rich and full it was deemed to be (Ps 103; Mic 7:19; Isa 38:17, Jer 31:34).
9. Limitations of Forgiveness
Two passages seem to limit God’s forgiveness. They are Christ’s discussion of the unpardonable sin (Mat 12:31, Mat 12:32; Mar 3:28-30; Luk 12:10), and the one which mentions the sin unto death (1Jn 5:16; compare Heb 6:4-6). In the former passage there is mentioned a sin which has no forgiveness, and in the latter, one on behalf of which the apostle cannot enjoin prayer that it be forgiven, though he does not prohibit it. In both cases the sin is excluded from the customary forgiveness which is extended to sins of all other classes.
The act of the Pharisees which led Jesus to speak of the unpardonable sin was the attributing of a good deed wrought by Him through the Spirit of God (Mat 12:28) to Beelzebub. No one could do such a thing unless his moral nature was completely warped. To such a person the fundamental distinctions between good and evil were obliterated. No ordinary appeal could reach him, for to him good seemed evil and evil seemed good. The possibility of winning him back is practically gone; hence, he is beyond the hope of forgiveness, not because God has set an arbitrary line of sinfulness, beyond which His grace of forgiveness will not reach, but because the man has put himself beyond the possibility of attaining to that state of mind which is the essential condition of Divine forgiveness. It is practically certain that John did not have any particular sinful act in mind when he spoke of the sin which is unto death. See BLASPHEMY.
There is no possible way of determining what specific sin, if any, he refers to. Probably the same principle applies in this case as in that of the unpardonable sin. God’s forgiveness is limited solely by the condition that man must accept it in the proper spirit.
There are some passages which seem to imply that forgiveness was the principal Messianic task. This is suggested by the name given to the Messiah during His earthly career (Mat 1:21), and by the fact that He was the Saviour. The remission of sins was the preparation for the advent of the Messiah (Luk 1:77), and repentance and remission of sins were the prerequisites to a state of preparation for the kingdom.
10. Christ’s Power to Forgive Sins
It is not surprising, therefore, that we find Jesus laying claim to the power to forgive sins. This provoked a bitter controversy with the Jews, for it was axiomatic with them that no one could forgive sins but God only (Mar 2:7; Luk 5:21; Luk 7:49). This Jesus did not question, but He would have them infer from His power to forgive sins that He was the possessor of Divine power. Jesus asserted His possession of this power on two occasions only, though it has been insufficiently inferred from Joh 5:14; Joh 8:11 that He was accustomed to pronounce absolution upon all of those He healed. On one of these occasions He not merely asserted that He possessed the power, but demonstrated it by showing Himself to be the possessor of the Divine gift of healing. The impostor might claim some such intangible power as the authority to forgive sins, but he would never assert the possession of such easily disproved power as the ability to heal the sick. But Jesus claimed both, and based His claim to be the possessor of the former on the demonstration that He possessed the latter. God would not support an impostor, hence, his aid in healing the paralytic proved that Jesus could forgive sins. The multitude accepted this logic and “glorified God, who had given such authority unto men” (Mat 9:2-9; compare Mar 2:3-12; Luk 5:18-26).
On the other occasion when His possession of this power was under discussion (Luk 7:36-50), He offered no other proof than the forgiven woman’s deep gratitude and love. One expression that He uses, however, has raised some discussion as to the relative order in time of her love and forgiveness (Luk 7:47). Did she love because she was forgiven, or vice versa? Manifestly the forgiveness precedes the love, in spite of the fact that Luk 7:47 seems to assert the opposite, for this is the bearing of the parable of the Two Debtors (Luk 7:41-43), and the latter part of Luk 7:47 has the same implication. It is clear that she had previously repented and had been accepted, and the anointing of Jesus was an outpouring of her gratitude. The phrase of Luk 7:47, “for she loved much,” is proof of the greatness of her sin rather than a reason why she was forgiven. In both cases where Jesus forgave sins, He did so because the state of mind of the person forgiven showed worthiness of the blessing. To this as a condition of forgiveness there is no exception. Christ’s prayer on the cross (Luk 23:34) would not avail to secure the pardon of His murderers without their repentance.
11. The Need of an Atonement
Though forgiveness is on God’s part an act of pure grace prompted by His love and mercy, and though He forgives freely all those who comply with the condition of repentance and abandonment of sin, yet this does not dispense with the necessity of an atonement. The parable of the Prodigal Son was spoken to teach the freedom of God’s forgiveness and acceptance of returning sinners, and the duty of men to assume the same attitude toward them. This much it teaches, but it fails to set forth entirely God’s attitude toward sin. With reference to the sinner God is love and mercy, but with reference to sin He is righteous, and this element of God’s nature is no less essential to Him than His love, and must be considered in any effort to set forth completely the doctrine of God’s forgiveness of sinners. The atonement of Christ and the many atonements of the Law were manifestations of this phase of God’s nature.
12. The New Testament Doctrine of Atonement
The idea of an atonement is fundamental in the teachings of the New Testament (Rom 5:10; 2Co 5:18-21; Col 1:21). It is very clearly implied in such terms as reconciliation and propitiation, and is no less present in pardon, remission and forgiveness. The doctrine of the atonement is not developed by Jesus, but it is strongly hinted at and is unmistakably implied in the language of Mat 20:28; Mat 26:28; Mar 10:45; Luk 24:46, Luk 24:47. John the Baptist’s salute, “Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world!” (Joh 1:29), also implies it. In the writings of the apostles it is repeatedly and clearly affirmed that our forgiveness and reconciliation to God is based upon the death of Christ. “In none other is there salvation” (Act 4:12); through Him is the redemption (Rom 3:24); God set Him forth to be a propitiation (Rom 3:25); through Him “we have now received the reconciliation” (Rom 5:11); “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself” (2Co 5:19); “Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf” (2Co 5:21); and “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us” (Gal 3:13). Such citations might be greatly multiplied. That which was so perfectly accomplished by the offering of Christ was in an analagous though imperfect way accomplished by the sacrifices required by the Law. It had “a shadow of the good things to come” (Heb 10:1).
The unvarying effect of sin is to produce an estrangement between the injurer and the wronged. The nature of God is such and the relationship between Him and man is of such a character that sin brings about an alienation between them. It is this presupposition of an estrangement between them which renders the atonement necessary before forgiveness can be extended to man. This estrangement must be removed, and the alienation be transformed into a reconciliation. In what then does the alienation consist?
The sin of man produces a changed attitude toward each other on the part of both God and man. God holds no personal pique against man because of his sin. The New Testament language is very carefully chosen to avoid any statement which would seem to convey such a conception. Yet God’s holy righteousness is such that He cannot be indifferent to sin. His wrath must rest upon the disobedient (Joh 3:36; Rom 1:18). It is not merely impersonal. It is not enough to say He hates the sin. Man’s unrighteousness has not merely alienated him from God, but God also from him. The word “enemies” (
The purpose of this article is not to discuss the large theological problems involved (see Atonement), but to consider the passages in which the term actually occurs in the Acts and the Epistles. The general word is ἀößçìé, of very common occurrence in the NT, especially in the Gospels, meaning ‘send away from oneself’ (Mat_13:36), ‘let go’ (Mat_4:20) ‘turn away from’ (Mat_19:29, 1Co_7:11), ‘pass over’ or ‘neglect’ (Heb_6:1, Mat_23:23), ‘relinquish one’s prey’ (used of robbers [Luk_10:30] or a disease [Mat_8:15, Mar_1:31, Luk_4:39, Joh_4:52]), or simply ‘leave a person free’ (Mar_10:14; Mar_14:6, Joh_11:44, Act_5:38), or treat him as if one had no more concern with him. Hence it is used of remitting a debt (Mat_18:27; Mat_6:12; Mat_6:14), equivalent to ïὐ ëïãἱæåóèáé (2Co_5:19; see also Sanday-Headlam, Romans 5 [International Critical Commentary , 1902], 100); the creditor tears up the bill, so to speak, or never enters the debt in his ledger. The verb, however, is rare outside the Gospels in the sense of ‘forgive.’ It occurs in Act_8:22 (the forgiveness of the thought of Simon’s heart), Jam_5:15, 1Jn_1:9; 1Jn_2:12 (in each case with ‘sins’), and, as a quotation, in Rom_4:7 (the forgiveness of ‘lawlessnesses,’ ἀíïìßáé).
Side by side with these instances, however, we must put the noun, ἅöåóéò. This is very rare in the Gospels (it is never attributed to Christ Himself, save in quotations and in the institution of the Eucharist in Mat_26:28 -not in the parallels). It is more frequent in the Acts: Act_2:38 (baptism for forgiveness of sins in the name of Christ), Act_5:31 (repentance and forgiveness of sins), Act_10:43 (forgiveness of sins through His name), Act_13:38 (through Him the forgiveness of sins is preached), Act_26:18 (forgiveness of sins … by faith that is in Christ). Here, the object is always ‘sins’; forgiveness is sometimes explicitly joined to repentance and baptism; but more particularly connected with Christ, Christ’s name, or faith in Christ. The procedure suggested by these passages is simple: preaching Christ, belief in Christ, and the resultant acceptance of the new position of freedom from sin. This might be all that was explicit in the experience of the early believers; it is obviously not the last word for the preacher, the theologian, or the believer himself. Hence, the fuller expression of St. Paul in Eph_1:7, ‘in whom we have our redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of our transgressions’ (cf. Col_1:14). Here, the figure of the cancelling of a debt is joined to another-rescue from some usurping power; and this (in the passage in Eph., not in Col.) is definitely connected with the shedding of the blood of Christ at His death; so in Heb_9:22 (‘apart from shedding of blood there is no remission of sins’). The only other passage in the Epistles where the word occurs is Heb_10:18, where forgiveness of sins and lawlessnesses is regarded as equivalent to their being remembered no more (Jer_31:34), and so needing no further sacrifice.
At first sight, it would seem strange that ἀößçìé is not used oftener; it does not occur at all in Rom. in the sense of forgiveness, save in a quotation (Rom_4:7, from Psa_32:1). But the reason is not far to seek. The conception, as already said, was not final; it was a figure, and one of several possible figures; and it was a single term applied to a mysterious and far-reaching experience which required further analysis. The writers of the Epistles do not neglect the experience, but they pass beyond the expression. In the primitive apostolic teaching of the Acts, it was enough to announce that Jesus was the Messiah, that He had risen from the death to which the rulers of the Jews had condemned Him, and that in Him the old promises of forgiveness of sins wore fulfilled-forgiveness even for the sin of putting Him to death. The cardinal notes of the apostles’ early preaching are the facts of the Resurrection and Messiahship of Jesus, and the necessity of believing in Him for the promised spiritual change. But it was inevitable that further questions should arise. How can this forgiveness be reconciled with God’s unchanging abhorrence of sin? What is the connexion between the death of Christ and the change in me? To answer these, St. Paul takes up the suggestion implied in the word ἄöåóéò, ‘a cancelled debt,’ already familiar to Pharisaic thought, and develops it into his doctrine of justification: there is a debt-all men owe it-caused by the nonperformance of the necessary works; judgment must therefore be given against us; but with the Judge who would pronounce the sentence there is also grace. Christ the Son of God dies for our sin; and this same death we also die, by faith, to sin; hence, we are justified before God-that is, we are like men who have never contracted a debt; and there is nothing for us but acquittal. This forensic figure is worked out by St. Paul more fully than any other; but he lays equal stress on the more mystical conceptions of redemption (see above) and death to sin (Rom_6:11 ‘estimate yourselves to be mere corpses with regard to sin’). ‘The importance of faith, however, is never left unexpressed, faith being at once surrender to, reliance on, and identification with its object. Here, St. Paul brings us to the circle of the thought of St. John, which only once refers to forgiveness (see above), but moves round the act of believing which joins man to God.
As kindred expressions we may notice the words ÷áñßæåóèáé-properly, ‘do a favour to a person,’ or, with the accusative of the thing, ‘make a present of’-sometimes in the sense of making a present of an act of wrong-doing, i.e., not insisting on the penalty for it (2Co_12:13, Col_2:13); ðÜñåóéò (Rom_3:25), ‘a temporary suspension of punishment which may be one day inflicted,’ and therefore entirely distinct from forgiveness (see R. C. Trench, NT Synonyms8, 1876, p. 110ff.); êáëýðôåéí, ‘to conceal, cover over’ (cf. the Hebrew kipper) (Rom_4:7 [quoting from Psa_32:1], 1Pe_4:8); and ëýåéí, ‘to loose’ (Rev_1:5).
Literature.-Forgiveness has very little modern literature devoted to it; but it is discussed in all literature dealing with Atonement and Reconciliation, and, at least Indirectly, in that referring to Sin and Conversion. See the articles Atonement, Conversion, Justification, Repentance, Sin, with the Literature there cited. Reference may also be made to G. B. Stevens, Theology of the NT, 1899; A. Ritschl, The Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation, Eng. translation , 1900; W. E. Orchard, Modern Theories of Sin, 1909; W. L. Walker, The Gospel of Reconciliation, 1909; P. T. Forsyth, The Work of Christ, 1910; R. Mackintosh, Christianity and Sin, 1913.
W. F. Lofthouse.
Since wrongdoing spoils a relationship, forgiveness is necessary if the relationship is to be restored. Forgiveness does not mean pretending that some wrongdoing did not happen. It means recognizing the wrongdoing for what it is, and then in love forgiving it, forgetting it, and restoring the relationship with the forgiven person (Heb 10:17-18).
The basis of forgiveness
Men and women, being sinners, have more than spoiled their relationship with God; they have also fallen under God’s judgment. They are therefore in need of God’s forgiveness if they are to escape that judgment (Exo 32:32; Rom 3:23-24). God alone can grant this forgiveness (Mar 2:7; Mar 2:10; Act 5:31), but sinners are in no position to demand it of him. No person has a right to forgiveness. Forgiveness is possible only because of the grace of God – the mercy that he exercises towards people even though they do not deserve it (Num 14:19; Psa 78:38; Rom 5:20; Tit 3:4-7).
God wants to forgive (Neh 9:17; Mic 7:18) but he requires repentance and faith in those who seek his forgiveness (Psa 32:5; Psa 51:17; Luk 7:36-50; Act 3:19; Act 10:43; Act 20:21; 1Jn 1:9). There is no mechanical way of gaining forgiveness, such as by offering a sacrifice or reciting a formula. Sinners are dependent entirely upon God’s mercy (Psa 51:1-4; Col 2:13).
This was so even in the sacrificial system of the Old Testament. There was no thought of bribing God by offering him sacrifices. On the contrary the sacrificial system was something God graciously gave as a means by which repentant sinners might approach him and obtain forgiveness (Lev 17:11; cf. Psa 130:3).
In the sacrifices, God provided a way whereby people could demonstrate their repentance, faith and obedience. Without such attitudes, they benefited nothing from their sacrifices (Psa 50:9; Psa 50:13-14; Psa 51:16-17; Isa 1:11; Isa 1:16-20).
The death of the animal in the place of the sinner also showed the sinner clearly that forgiveness of sin was possible only when the penalty of sin had justly been carried out. Forgiveness was costly. Without the shedding of blood there could be no forgiveness (Heb 9:22; cf. Lev 4:2-7; Lev 16:15-19; see SACRIFICE). Christ’s death is the basis on which God forgives all sins, past, present or future (Mat 26:28; Act 13:38; Rom 3:24-26; Eph 1:7; Heb 9:11-14; Heb 9:26). And once God has forgiven sins, they are removed for ever (Psa 103:12; Isa 43:25; Col 2:13-14; Heb 8:12; Heb 10:17-18).
Forgiveness in practice
Christ’s followers have the responsibility to preach the forgiveness of sins, and because of this they become the means by which people either believe the gospel and are forgiven, or reject it and remain in their sins (Joh 20:22-23; Act 13:38). Jesus on one occasion referred to the deliberate rejection of him as the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, a sin for which there could be no forgiveness (Mat 12:31-32; for further discussion see BLASPHEMY).
Once people have been forgiven by God, they have the responsibility to forgive any who sin against them. This is more than a sign of their gratitude to God. It is a requirement laid upon them if they want to experience God’s continued forgiveness of their own failures (Mat 6:12; Mat 18:21-35; Mar 11:25; Luk 6:37; Luk 7:47; Luk 17:4; Eph 4:32). (Concerning the forgiven person’s subsequent wrongdoings and their relationship to salvation see JUSTIFICATION, sub-heading ‘Justification and forgiveness’.)
There are seven words in Scripture that denote the idea of forgiveness: three in Hebrew and four in Greek. No book of religion except Christianity teaches that God completely forgives sins. God remembers our sins no more (Heb 10:17). God is the initiator of forgiveness (Col 2:13).
There is only one sin for which the Father does not promise forgiveness: blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Mar 3:28; Mat 12:32). The contexts suggest this to be the sin of attributing to unclean spirits the work of the Holy Spirit.
For man to receive forgiveness, repentance is necessary (Luk 17:3-4). For the holy God to extend forgiveness, the shedding of blood is necessary (Heb 9:22; Lev 17:11). Forgiveness is based upon the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.